Tonight's coverage of Denver City Council starts now.

Good afternoon everyone.

Thank you for joining us.

Thank you for taking the time to join Denver City Council's meeting.

Today is Monday, January 12, 2026.

Today is Monday, January 12, 2026.

Tonight's meeting is being interpreted into Spanish.

Sam or Jasmine, would you please introduce yourself and let our viewers know how to enable translation on their devices?

Yes, of course. Good afternoon. Buenas tardes. Hello, everyone.

My name is Sam Guzman with the CLC.

Joining you virtually through Zoom and along with my colleague Jasmine, we will be interpreting today's meeting into Spanish.

Please allow me a quick moment while I give instructions in Spanish on how to access interpretation.

with us and is right in the camera.

Please look to the front of the camera and you will find an assistant who can give you

headphones to be able to hear in Spanish.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Sam.

Welcome to the Denver City Council meeting of Monday, January 12, 2026.

Council members please join Councilmember Alvidres in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Council members, please join Councilmember Alvarez as they lead us in the Denver City Council land acknowledgement.

The Denver City Council honors and acknowledges that the land on which we reside is the traditional territory of the Ute, Cheyenne, and Arapaho peoples.

We also recognize the 48 contemporary tribal nations that are historically tied to the lands that make up the state of Colorado.

We honor elders past, present, and future, and those who have stewarded this land throughout

generations.

We also recognize that government, academic, and cultural institutions were founded upon

and continue to enact erasures and exclusions of Indigenous peoples.

May this acknowledgement demonstrate a commitment to working to dismantle ongoing legacies of

of oppression and inequities and recognize the current

and future contributions of indigenous communities in Denver.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Madam Secretary, roll call.

Alvarez.

Here.

Flynn.

Here.

Gilmore.

Here.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Hines.

Here.

Cashman.

Here.

Lewis.

Parity.

Here.

Romero Campbell.

Here.

Sawyer.

Here.

Torres?

Here.

Watson?

Here.

Madam President Sandoval?

Here.

13 members present.

13 members present.

Council has a quorum.

Approval of the minutes.

Are there any corrections to the minutes of January 5th?

Seeing none, the minutes stand approved.

Council announcements.

Are there any council announcements this afternoon?

Council member Gonzalez-Cutierrez, why don't you start us off.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

We have an item on consent today and it is a proclamation, it's a proclamation on consent

and it's recognizing Zahra Levy for her work and public service during her time with the

Denver City Council Office of Councilwoman, me, Gonzalez-Cutierrez.

And so I just wanted to recognize you, Zahra, who's here in the room.

you so much for your work over the years. Zara has been with me since 2022 when I was in the

state legislature and she very kindly followed me across the park and continued to work and learn

all of the city systems and continued the passion that she brought to you know working on tenant

protection issues. She was one of the driving forces in our office to make sure that we were

fighting for temporary rental and utility assistance funds and I'm really really proud of her.

She is going to be running the local chapter for Colorado for local progress which is a great

national organization that helps support local elected officials. You know everything from city

council to county commissioners to school board members and so I'm and even mayors. So I'm really

excited to see her take this next step and and I wish you the best and know

that she's actually not going to be that far away from us and many of us will

still be able to get to interact with her so thank you and congratulations

Sarah

next up councilman Alvarez

District 7 is hosting a Wellness Wednesday this Wednesday, January 14th at Alchemy Creative Workspace.

This is a pre-expo kickoff designed to help you kick off your 2026 health goals in a fun, supportive environment.

Stop by to meet local wellness professionals, enjoy complimentary sips, snacks, and sounds,

and connect with experts dedicating to supportive mental and overall well-being.

Be sure to pick up your love local map and get your first stamp towards getting some

prizes.

Wellness and Fitness Expo.

Come mingle, learn and take a first step in your wellness journey.

Also to follow up on this on January 17th, 18th and 19th is when we will be having our

Wellness and Fitness Actual Expo to explore local wellness and fitness businesses.

Meet trainers, therapists, tour gyms, take classes and discover supportive resources

to help you reach your health goals.

You can register now.

Check out our social media at Denver's Lucky District 7 Instagram page.

We have everything on there.

This is a follow-up from a very successful event,

specifically to Wellness and West Wash Park last year,

and now we're expanding it through all of District 7 because it was so successful.

Thank you so much, Council President.

Thank you.

Council President Lamar Campbell.

Thank you, Madam President.

I have two updates, and they're all about golf.

So the first one is Kennedy Golf Course is going to be getting a new clubhouse.

And so there is a survey out.

It is on my website.

It's also on the Denver Golf website.

To be able to put this into action and get more community input, this has been a long time in the making.

So please fill it out.

We'd love to have your input.

And then the second one is the Welshaw Golf Course is turning 100 this year.

And we are excited to have this be part of the 250-150 celebration of our state and of our country.

But the Welsh Hour 100 on June 5th, I'll be making a lot of announcements about it between now and then.

But on June 5th, we're going to have a golf tournament.

And it's a fun one.

People are asking how competitive.

It's going to be a fun one.

And it's on June 5th.

That's a Friday and a community celebration from 5 to 8.

So we're also opening up the Welshhire facility, not all of the golf course, but the facility, the clubhouse, to community to come, learn more about the history, and just celebrate an asset in our community.

So it's the Welshhire 100.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Swain.

I just wanted to remind everyone that all January long we will be doing our blood drive, January's National Blood Donor Month.

I gave blood on Friday afternoon and then went home and took a giant nap.

But it is a really, really important month.

It's a really important opportunity to help support our neighbors.

January is National Blood Donor Month because donations during the holiday season are almost non-existent.

And that means that there are a number of people in our community who are in need of blood transfusions who are at risk of not being able to get that blood.

So if you're interested, please go check our website or social media and sign on up like I did.

It was very quick and easy and helped a number of people.

So we'd really appreciate everyone participating. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilmember Wechtin.

Thank you, Council President. Most folks that know me know that I am a music fan. Most of them are shocked at the wide range of music that I love. And so I want to do a few moments tonight to take a moment to honor Bob Ware and the music of the Grateful Dead, which has meant so much to so many people in Denver.

The Grateful Dead reinvented the great American songbook, and their music alone deserves respect.

For 60 years, Bob Ware and the Grateful Dead's impact went beyond music.

They built a community of deadheads who supported one another.

My senior advisor, Dwight Clark, who's somewhere hovering in the audience, found that community.

He has seen Bob Ware in nine states, and his love for the dead spans three generations.

So on behalf of deadheads everywhere and folks that just love good music, I want to thank Bob Weir and the Grateful Dead for 60 years of fantastic music, community, and family, because the music never stopped.

Thank you.

Councilman Bray-Lewis.

Councilman Cashman, would you like to speak on that?

I asked him before I did.

My friend said everything I would say.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Keith Porter and Renee Good, who lost their lives this year at the hands of lives.

I know community members are concerned and are looking at their leaders as to what to do.

And I know that there were protests over the weekend.

And as I always say, to make sure that that pressure that you all build in the streets translates into pressure to us electeds as well to encourage us or force whatever is necessary for policy change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just want to give out a shout out to technology services.

So last week we had to be all hardwired, like meaning green cords into the Ethernet.

they did a rush and equipped the room with Wi-Fi,

which we don't hear that buzzing noise as much.

So if you all have other feedback,

and then we were able to add another row

for having more public comment seats by pushing us back.

So thank you all for your patience and due diligence

while we work on having things become our Monday night facility

for the next foreseeable future.

and just want to remind everyone that Monday is a holiday.

It's the celebration observance of Martin Luther King Day,

so we move our meeting and everything else to the following Tuesday.

And with that, I'm seeing no other comments,

no other council members in the queue.

There are no presentations.

There are no proclamations.

There is one proclamation.

There are no communications, sorry.

There is one proclamation this afternoon.

Councilmember Flynn and Hines, can you please read Proclamation 0014?

Yes, I will, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Hines and I are co-sponsoring this.

Proclamation 26-14, honoring Steve Ellington on his 37 years of service to the city and county of Denver.

Whereas Steve Ellington started his career with the city on December 5, 1988,

as a junior property tax auditor in the assessment division,

and after several promotions and transfers between Department of Finance divisions

and before the existence of the Department of Finance,

I wonder who held on to our money before that,

over the next 19 years, he was promoted in 2007 to the position of City Treasurer

and whereas in 2011 Steve was tapped to lead the Motor Vehicle Division

in addition to the Treasury Division,

making these combined divisions the largest in the Department of Finance

with the responsibility of billing, acting, processing,

and auditing approximately 70% of the city's general fund

revenue as well as $1.2 billion in tax revenues

for Denver Public Schools.

And whereas Steve has many accolades in his field,

including serving as a past president

of the Colorado County Treasurer Association,

chair or co-chair of the association's

legislative committee and continuing education committee,

and chair of the Colorado Municipal League Sales Tax Administrators Group,

and whereas Steve was appointed and reappointed by the Colorado Municipal League,

the Governor's Office, and the Colorado General Assembly to represent Home Rule municipalities

on tax simplification and tax policy task forces multiple times from 2017 to 2024,

and whereas when the Treasury team members were asked to provide feedback on the characteristics

of a future leader,

many responses asked

that the next city treasurer be just like Steve

for his approachability,

his genuine care for team members,

and his calm in the eye of the storm.

And,

whereas,

Steve is proven to be highly responsive

to city council offices

and to constituents with concerns,

either having a team member make direct contact

or personally reaching out to those

with issues and finding prompt resolution.

And,

Whereas, Steve has stepped up to support all of the Department of Finance in many ways,

including through the highs and lows of challenging economic conditions,

including the unprecedented pandemic,

and he's always provided a steady hand and reassuring smile.

And whereas, county chargers are renowned for counting in their heads

and with their fingers before eventually asking for help,

and for rounding up in every situation, even if rounding principles suggest downward,

and for desiring the coolest pocket protector

at the treasurer conferences

and for quoting statutes and ordinances

in every conversation at a cocktail party.

And whereas, Steve and his wife Kim

are in need of a little more time to continue their quest

to visit every craft brewery in the state of Colorado

and have already visited 308 of the 440 in our state.

Now, therefore, be it proclaimed

by the Denver City Council section one that the Denver City Council recognizes

Steve Ellington for his 37 years of service to the people of Denver and

congratulates him on his retirement section two that the clerk and record of

the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county

Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Steve Ellington

you both.

Councilmember Flynn, your motion to adopt. Yes, Madam President. I move that

Proclamation 26-0014 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by

Council, Councilmember Flynn, Lynn Hines. Yes, thank you. I think the

proclamation says quite a bit about the person that we're recognizing tonight

and the large shoes that he needs to fill, that need to be filled on his departure.

But one thing I want to highlight and expand on that was in the proclamation is the responsiveness

that I think most of our offices have had from Steve personally as treasurer,

not just from his office, but from him personally.

And I've appreciated that over the many years, even before I was on this body.

while it was built a newspaper.

The city, as city treasurer,

Steve was always accessible.

And I think that, I think it's true that you, Steve,

that you replaced Steve Hutt as city treasurer.

So I thought when Sophia was,

Hassman was appointed to replace you,

I was shocked because I thought there was a requirement

that the city treasurer be named Steve.

But apparently not.

But at least her name begins with S.

Steve, I didn't know about your craft brewery quest.

Is that why you're taking, is this early retirement

or is this on time?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

I defer now to my colleague, Councilman Hines.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilmember Flynn,

for co-sponsoring this with me.

I don't have too much to add other than I'm curious

what the latest market protector is

and what the coolest market protector is.

I haven't been keeping up with pocket protection and it shows.

So I've got to do better.

And I do want to wish you the best.

If I were to count on my hands, I would easily do 440 minus 308.

So you've got 132 left.

So best of luck.

Not everyone will even attempt to do math in their head on camera, but those of us with cool pocket protectors will at least try. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Just wanted to say, Steve, thank you for all the help over the years. As a council aide, I reached out to you. As an elected, I reached out to you and couldn't reiterate what Councilmember Flynn said even more.

Your timeliness, your professionalism, and your wealth of knowledge will greatly be missed.

Every time someone leaves the city, I'm always like, they knew so much, and they know things back in the day.

So thank you for the service to the residents of Denver, and I wish you well.

Don't go too far, because, you know, they say about retirement, it's not everything they hope it is going to be.

So with that, see no other comments in the queue.

Madam Secretary, roll call.

Council members, Albitrez.

Aye.

Flynn. Aye. Gilmore. Aye. Gonzalez Gutierrez. Aye. Hines. Aye. Cashman. Aye. Lewis. Aye. Parity. Aye. Romero-Campbell. Aye. Sawyer. Aye. Torres. Aye. Watson. Aye. Madam President Sandoval. Aye. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. 13 ayes. 13 ayes. Proclamation 0014 has been adopted. Council Member Flynn and Hines, who would you like?

like to invite up to accept the proclamation.

Thank you, Madam President.

I think we have to invite Steve and probably no one else.

Unless, Steve, you would like to introduce Sophia as well.

Come on up to the podium.

Give us her cell phone number.

Come on up to the podium.

Thank you all.

It's been a pleasure to work for the city

and county of Denver for 37 years.

it's two-thirds of my life I've come to the corner of Colfax and Bannock every day to come to work

for the residents and businesses that call Denver home. And I can't imagine a better place to live,

work, and have fun. Some of the best breweries are in Denver. And so it's time to step away and

enjoy the rest of my life. But my heart will always be with the city and county of Denver

and the great things that it does.

The Treasury team has always,

I've taken great pride in the fact

that the Treasury Division is responsible

for collecting the tax revenues

that get spent on services for Denver residents.

And it's a great team that we have.

Couldn't have done anything without that team.

They're a fantastic team.

And so I look forward to turning over the mantle to Sophia.

And I wish you all well.

And thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.

Planning and Housing Committee 25-2147, a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning

classification for 3050 Richard Allen Court in Skyland.

Is that it?

Just one.

All righty.

Council Member, this is your last opportunity to call out an item.

Council Member Alvidrez, will you please make the motions for us this evening?

Yes, Council President Sandel.

Thank you.

Now I'll do a recap.

Under resolutions, Council Member Lewis is carrying an amendment to Council Resolution 2059.

Council Resolution 2112 has been called out for questions by Council Member Lewis.

And Council Resolution 2070 has been called out for questions and comments by Council Member Lewis.

Under bills for introduction, no items have been called out.

Under bills for final consideration, no items have been called out.

Under pending, no items have been called out.

Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens.

Council Resolution 2059.

You wanted me to read this twice, Louis, to make sure.

A resolution laying out, opening, and establishing as part of the city street system parcels of land

located in Stapleton Filing 49, subdivision, as a public right-of-way as 1,

North Spruce Street, 2, East 54th Place, 3, East Prairie Meadow Drive, 4, North Tritton Street, 5, East 53rd Drive, 6, North Tamarack Street, 7, East 54th Place, 8, North Tamarack Way, 9, East 54th Drive, 10, East 55th Avenue, 11, North Uintah Street, 12, East 55th Place, 13, East 55th Place.

55th Avenue, 14 North Uinta Way, 15 East Prairie Meadow Drive, 16 North Valentia Street, 17 East 54th Place, 18 East 54th Place, 19 North Valentia Street, 20 North Valentia Court, 21 North Robina Street, 22 East 54th Drive, 23 East 54th Place, 24 North Robina Way, 25 North Robina Way,

6th North Wapash Street, 27 East 54th Avenue, 28 East 54th Place, 29 East 55th Avenue, 30 North

Willow Street, 31 East 54th Drive, 32 North Exenia Street, 33 North Exenia Court, 34 North Exenia

Xena Street, 35 East 53rd Avenue, 36 North Willow Way, 37 North Akron Street, 38 East 52nd Place, 38 East 52nd Place, 39 North Xenia Street, 40 North Willow Way, 41 North Yosemite Way, 42 East 52nd Avenue, 43 East Perry Meadow Drive, and 44 North of Venus Street.

Councilmember Alvidrez, will you please put Council Resolution 2059 on the floor for adoption?

I move that Council Resolution 25-2059 be adopted.

It has been moved and seconded.

Councilmember Lewis, your motion to amend.

Councilmembers, I move to amend Resolution 25-2059 and the following particulars.

one on page one line six strike 49 and replaced with 45.

It has been moved and seconded.

Comments by members of council.

Councilmember Luehr.

Yeah, so the purpose of this amendment is to correct a drafting error.

The Stapleton filing subdivision is number 45 and not number 49.

Great. Thank you.

Madam Secretary, roll call on amendment to council resolution 2059.

Council members Albitres.

Aye.

Flynn.

Gilmore.

Aye.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Aye.

Hines.

Cashman.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Parity.

Romero-Campbell.

Aye.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Torres.

Watson.

Aye.

Madam President Sandoval.

Aye.

Madam Secretary, close the voting and on to the results.

11 ayes.

11 ayes.

the amendment to Council Resolution 2059 has passed.

Council Member Alvarez,

would you please put Council Resolution 2059

on the floor for adoption as amended?

I move that the resolution and pro...

I move that Council Resolution 25-2059

be adopted as amended.

It has been moved.

And seconded.

Comments by members of council as amended.

Council Member Lewis?

I just have one.

So Dottie has actually been super helpful in answering the questions I had about this item.

But I did want to flag that I requested some information about how these dedications may increase demand on city funds.

And I remain interested in how that looks and what that demand may look like.

And so if you all could send me that information, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other colleagues in the queue, Madam Secretary, roll call on council resolution 2059.

As amended.

Council members Alvidrez.

Aye.

Flynn.

Gilmore.

Aye.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Aye.

Hines.

Cashman.

Aye.

Lewis.

Aye.

Parity.

Aye.

Romero-Campbell.

Aye.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Torres.

Aye.

Watson.

Aye.

Madam President Sandoval.

Aye.

Madam Secretary, close the voting.

Announce the results.

11 ayes.

11i, Council Resolution 2059 has been adopted as amended.

Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens, Council Resolution 2112,

a resolution approving a proposed amendatory agreement in the city and county of Denver

and Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to continue to provide house services

at the all-in Mile-I Shelters and micro communities citywide.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead with your questions on Council Resolution 2112.

Thank you.

So I call this item off because we've heard both in conversations with folks on the streets

as well as through the collection of survey data that folks are not utilizing these services

for a number of reasons.

One example is under the previous version of this contract, there was no single dedicated

person to individuals.

And so people would get services, including therapy, and then they would have to start

over with a different person the next time that they came back for services.

And so it's hard to build the necessary relationships to address your mental health if you have

to start over every single week.

And so I had two questions, and I'm sure we can understand two questions.

The first question is, what, if any, has changed with how these services will be provided

under this contract?

And then the second question is, what are the performance metrics of this contract,

and how are we measuring success?

Hi, Tristan Sanders, Director for Community Behavioral Health at DDPHE.

We manage this contract out of my office.

So I'm going to try to take your questions in order, but make sure to keep me straight.

So first, this contract has been amended from the previous contract to focus on a couple of things.

One is that CCH is being responsive to referrals for services.

So there's an online referral form.

Anybody across the LMI Ohio sites can fill that out.

It goes directly to CCH staff, and they are to follow up with those referrals within two days, two business days.

So there's going to be increased responsiveness to those referrals.

We think that's going to help with some of the linkage to care because people are getting service when they request it.

The second part of this is that there's a bit of an increase in staffing on the nurse navigator line,

which is exactly the person who's making sure that people get appointments with the people that they need for those different services.

And so there'll be a greater level of continuity with additional nurses on site that are able to do that for folks.

The last part is that we are focused on and talking with CCH about what care looks like when people leave the All-in-Mio High sites.

There may be some issues in seeing the same people when they're in All-in-Mio High sites versus when they leave,

because they may be going to different facilities.

but we at least want to ensure that they are connected to the same primary care provider

and that they are still able to access services, period.

Don't know if we're going to be able to achieve the continuity and the care provided from somebody

when that change happens, but at least when they're in all-in-mile high sites,

it should be much better.

Yeah.

Remind me your second question.

Success metrics and accountability.

Very good.

So one, the first success metric is the time it takes to respond to those referrals.

So, again, making sure that people are getting service in the time that they ask for it.

Two is that in those referrals, there's a whole, it's like a form, and it'll ask a bunch of questions about what types of service people are requesting or what people need.

And we're going to be looking at are those services actually delivered.

So if somebody asks for certain types of services, is that what they're getting or is it just they're getting a nurse visit?

And so those two things we think are going to drive a lot of the performance related to people remaining in care.

The last one is people connected to care when they leave.

So as I mentioned, we want to ensure that everybody still has a PCP through CCH or somewhere else so that they continue to receive services once they leave.

We think that will help with the continuity of care over time.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it.

Awesome.

Council Member Watson.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Just a follow-up question from you.

One of the places in which I scrutinized this contract when it first came forward was the metrics and kind of the outcomes process.

You provided in my briefing some clarity on kind of the measurement outcomes beyond the referral timeline.

Can you speak to kind of the time these residents will be in this process and kind of what the outcome, since it's just referral-based, you're not doing long-term impacts?

Why is that the case for these individuals that are receiving support from Colorado Coalition for the Homeowners?

Appreciate the question.

So one data point that I think Host actually provides pretty regularly is that on average,

people spend somewhere between three and six months in shelters.

And so when we think about that period of time and what type of health services somebody could get,

we're not talking about managing A1Cs, getting people in a higher level of care.

We're talking about are they connected to services, are they receiving those services,

and do they now have the ability to get those services once they leave?

That's why I focus so heavily on the elements of the contract that we did.

Something that we saw in the data from CCH is that, on average, it's a nine-to-one services-to-person ratio.

So any one person is receiving, on average, nine services from CCH, which is extraordinary.

I mean, it tells me that, one, they're probably there long enough to receive those services,

and, two, that they're engaging pretty significantly in those services.

So the fact that somebody is now reconnected to care, receiving a certain level of care,

and staying connected to a PCP long-term, I think are the greatest outcomes that we can see

for a three to six month time frame that they're engaged.

I want to thank you for providing that transparency, that updating the contract, really being clear

on kind of what the end to end impacts are for the users, the residents, then also making

it clear as how many touches individuals are receiving as far as service.

So I appreciate all that.

Thank you, Madam President.

Seeing no other members in the queue, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our

screens.

Council Resolution 2070, a resolution approving a proposed seventh amendatory agreement between the City and County of Denver,

U.S. Motels, Denver North, Inc., to provide units for the Support Team Assisted Response Star Program

and non-congregate shelter as well as congregate shelter space for individuals and families

when the City's emergency shelter beds are full through the established non-congregate shelter program citywide.

Councilmember Lewis, please go ahead with your questions and comments on

resolution 2070. Thank you. I just have one question because HOS has been super

helpful in answering the questions about this contract thus far and I know that

HOS has provided a list of motels from this provider but I just have one

outstanding question regarding that list. If I could have the list of all the

motels that are owned by this company not just the ones that we are currently

using. The reason that I am making this request is to prevent future surprises in the event that a

new hotel is selected for use. That's it. Yeah, absolutely. Jeff Kositsky, Deputy Director at

Host. I can ask for that information from the owner. And certainly, you've received the list,

though, of all of the sites that we are currently using. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. This concludes

of the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilmembers,

remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote aye. Otherwise, this is your

last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Albedarez, will you please

put the resolutions and proclamations for adoption and the bills for on final consideration for final

passage on the floor? I move that the resolutions and proclamations be adopted and bills on final

consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for

the following items 26 0 0 13 25 20 70 25 yeah yeah sorry sorry sorry 25 21 oh 9

sorry this mouse is very yes 25 21 32 25 1987 25 21 12 25 21 oh six 25 20 56 25 20 84

and 25 2084. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.

Council members Albitros. Aye. Flynn. Aye. Gilmore. Aye. Gonzales Gutierrez. Aye. Hines. Aye.

Cashman. Aye. Lewis. Aye. Parody. Aye. Romero-Campo. Aye. Sawyer. Aye. Torres. Aye. Watson. Aye.

Madam President Sandoval.

Madam Secretary, close voting.

Announce the results.

13 ayes.

13 ayes.

The resolution and proclamations have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass.

Tonight there will be two required public hearings on Council Bill.

One on Council Bill 1704, approving and accepting the park building plan for the maintenance and operations facility,

equipment building and storage building all located in the city of Kornabaka

Park pursuant to provisions of sections 39 through 210 and 39 through 211 of

the Denver Revised Municipal Code and Council Bill 1925-1991 changing the

zoning classification for 8250 East 40th Avenue in Central Park. If there are no

objections from members of council we will recess until 5 30 p.m. before

Before convening the regular meeting, City Council will provide a half-hour general public comment session to hear from the public on city matters,

except for any matter that is scheduled for a legally required public hearing.

The general public comment session will begin promptly at 5.

Hey, Denver. Here's what's happening around the mile high this week.

Prepare to be captivated by the minuscule wonders, as all featured artworks will be no larger than 6 by 6 by 6 inches.

From intricate paintings and sculptures to delicate jewelry, stickers, ornaments, pins, and more,

this exhibit promises a diverse array of mini masterpieces.

A portion of the proceeds from the art sales will contribute to suicide awareness and prevention.

Get ready to explore Denver's spookier side with a twist.

Dive into the city's haunted history where the rich and elite once lived and, it seems, some never left.

Sip on some of Denver's finest drinks and uncover the stories of ghosts lingering in places like the Cottage House and beyond.

Get your camera and get ready to learn both the creative and practical sides of a working frame shop.

unpacking how choices around matting and frame selection shape the presentation, longevity, and preservation of photographs and artwork.

This program offers insight into decisions that often happen behind the scenes.

Rodeo fans, contestants, and rodeo clowns come together in a wave of pink for the Pink Pro Road.

Public comment session. If we did not get to you today, please join us at our next session or submit your comments in writing.

The next session will be held on Monday.

That's a lie.

The next session will be held on Tuesday, January 20th, because we are closed Monday, January 19th.

Sign up begins at 5 p.m. on Thursday, January 15th.

We look forward to hearing from you again, and thank you all for attending.

The family with a one-month-old needs donations to get somewhere inside.

They don't even have a car.

If anyone would like to donate, please, please do help because we're putting on a hotel right now.

One month old baby.

Thank you.

Council will now reconvene from our earlier session.

There is no unfinished business from the earlier session.

There is one proclamation being read this evening.

Councilmember Alvidrez, would you please read Proclamation 260021?

Yes, thank you, Council President.

a proclamation honoring West East Neighborhood United for the leadership on the NWSL Stadium Community Benefit Agreement.

Whereas West East Neighbors United, we knew, was formed as a coalition of registered neighborhood organizations,

nonprofit partners, small businesses, labor representatives, and community members

from neighborhoods of both west and east of the South Platte River and Santa Fe Drive,

areas long shaped by physical, economic, and social divisions

created by highways, rail lines, zoning decisions,

and a historic pattern of a disinvestment.

And whereas these divisions have too often separated communities

that share geography, history, and fate, limiting opportunities for collaboration and shared advocacy across Southwest Denver,

and whereas West East Neighbors United intentionally came together to bridge those divides,

creating a unified cross-neighborhood voice grounded in equity, mutual respect, transparency,

and shared commitment to the long-term well-being of residents and small businesses in Southwest Denver.

And whereas through a community-led and collaborative process,

we knew organized a representative steering committee to guide negotiations

and ensure that community priorities remain central throughout complex and high-stakes development discussions.

And whereas West East Neighbors United elected Anita Bonuelos, South Park Arno, Adriana Lopez Valverde Arno, Tim Lopez Baker Arno, and Connor Shea Baker Arno to serve as co-chairs providing steady leadership, cross-neighborhood coordination, and good faith negotiations on behalf of a broader coalition.

And whereas the steering committee brought together leaders from Athmar Park Neighborhood Association, Valverde, Baker Historic Neighborhood Association, Denver Interneighborhood Cooperation, Platt Park Neighbors, Overland Park Neighbors, Lincoln Broadway Corridor Registered Neighborhood Organization, Ruby Hill, Westwatch Park Neighborhood Association,

Broadway Merchants Association, Colorado Asian Pacific United, Denver Streets Partners, Faith

Bridge, the Greenway Foundation, the Park People, and River Sisters Congreso, as well

as inter-neighborhood and community organizations reflecting the diversity of Southwest Denver

and modeling what inclusive representative civic engagement can look like in practice.

Whereas through the sustained dialogue,

volunteer labor and countless hours of meetings,

West East Neighbors United worked across differences

to articulate shared priorities focused on social equity,

workforce development, transportation access,

environmental stewardship, arts and culture,

and long-term neighborhood stability.

And whereas this collective effort helped secure

a significant public and private investment

in Southwest Denver, including enforceable community benefits

intended to address historic inequities,

mitigate development impacts,

and ensure that residents and small business

closest to the project share in its benefits.

And whereas West East Neighbors United, we knew,

demonstrated that community members,

when organized, informed, and united,

can meaningfully engage complex city processes

with integrity and accountability

and care for future generations.

And whereas the work of West East Neighbors United

reflects the values of civic participation,

bridge building, and shared stewardship

of a place that strengthens not only Southwest Denver,

but the city and county of Denver as a whole.

Now therefore, be it proclaimed by Denver City Council

that the city and county of Denver hereby recognizes

and honors West East Neighbors United,

its elected co-chairs, steering committee members,

participating organizations,

and affiliated community volunteers

for their leadership in building bridges

across historic divides for their role

in securing meaningful investment

in community benefits in Southwest Denver

and that the city expresses its gratitude

to all who contributed their time, expertise,

and lived experience to this effort

and reaffirms its commitment to continued partnership

with community-led coalitions working

to advance equity, connectivity, and opportunity

for all Denver residents.

And section two, that the clerk and recorder

of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal

of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation

a copy be transmitted to Anita Banuelos, Connor Shea, Adriana Lopez and Tim Lopez.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Alvarez, your motion to adopt.

I move that proclamation 26-0021 be adopted.

It has been moved and seconded.

Comments by members of Council.

Council Member Alvarez.

Thank you, Council President.

This is an honor for me to bring this proclamation in a district that has experienced so much

inequity over so much time.

I'm so proud of the work that the RNO leaders did to not only name this in such a special

way West and East Neighbors United.

Sometimes District 7 seems like two different cities.

You have such a divide between the East side and the West side and what happens and the

problems are very different and both have struggles very different struggles

and both have history different history and as a council member I've been able

to learn a lot about that history on both sides and then equities that have

occurred on both sides and this coalition has been amazing the amount of history

that the neighbors know about the neighborhood the dedication and love

that these neighbors have for the area has been unwavering and I would just

ask you know whether or not however you feel about the soccer stadium and that investment is this is

really about the community members that dedicated their time and dedicated all of their energy to

make this happen and i'm so grateful for their efforts thank you um someone tell me who's next

in the queue my computer's down okay council member heights thank you madam president um

Thank you, Council Member Albedras, for bringing this forward.

Thank you so much to the committee members that took a lot of time and effort to work on this.

Many times, the only people who aren't paid to be in these community gathering committees

are the people who are living in the area where the development is getting dropped into.

Many times it is being shoved onto the neighbors.

I'm not sure that's what happened this time.

I think that thanks to the work of this group,

along with the willingness of the ownership group to have that conversation

and lean into a community benefits agreement,

I think we have something that will work with the community.

as opposed to being shoved into a community.

Several people in the queue,

I just wanna drill into one thing.

I care about this planet.

I also care about our habitat ability on this planet.

And so the one thing that I wanted to chat about

is the LEED certification.

So this is something that is,

it's not just a checklist for a plaque and a wall,

It's a holistic framework that has developers

to think about energy use, waste, transportation access,

and most importantly, how a building serves

and connects to the surrounding community.

Again, that group that would sometimes have something

shoved onto them, having the community benefits

agreed certification is incredibly important

important and impactful so that the building itself is in partnership with

the community as opposed to being shoved onto the community. So I hope that we can

carry this momentum forward. As far as I know this is the most robust

sustainability community centered standards ever included in a community

benefits agreement anywhere in the country. I could be wrong but but I

I believe it was certainly up there.

If it's one of, if not the.

And so I want to thank the stakeholder group

for leaning in and requiring that the building itself

be re-certified because that is in partnership

with the community, not just being shoved.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Councilman Torres.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilwoman Alvitres.

I think this is really special to be able to honor the community that came together for this CBA.

I know it went fast and just really applaud your initiative.

I know Valverde is a part of my council district, but very much connected to the vicinity of this stadium.

And just appreciate your leadership.

Nobody has to be at the table for these, but at the end of the day, somebody has to be there for community.

And I feel like you guys are always those who stand up and take that championship mantle and carry it forward.

And it's always a different conversation.

Park Hill was a different CBA than Ballerina was a different CBA from yours.

And it will be different from the Broncos.

Every time we do this, we do it with a very narrow look at who is the community affected.

What are the opportunities that can be addressed?

And that takes a lot of, I think, knowledge and experience about your community and vision.

And so I thank you for having both of those things and commit that in the future,

those community members that come to the table don't have to do it without support.

I know you got support, but they didn't get paid for it.

Stadium side, that was their job to be there at the table with you all, so they did.

And it's really important for us to make sure that folks that you're getting legal assistance from,

drafting assistance, facilitation from, are there and able to commit the time.

So thank you all for the work that you did, everyone who supported that CBA.

Thank you to the LaVa Today community for taking this on,

and really appreciate your determined ability here.

Thank you.

Thanks, Madam President.

Thank you.

Council Member Cashman.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just want to add my thanks to the neighborhood representatives

who participated in this.

Thank you, Councilman Alvidrez, for your support along the way.

I had said from the beginning that I really wanted that stadium to get built,

but without a robust community benefit agreement,

I'd have been unable to vote for Denver's participation, as robust as that was.

So your work came out with an agreement that actually turned out to be a little bit better than I thought I might be seeing.

And the other thing is I have changed my view of the transaction as a whole.

rather than us giving the ownership group $70 million.

I look at the city of Denver participated as a full partner

in bringing a National Women's Soccer League franchise to Denver.

So it is my great hope that this turns out to be the best of upsides

in stimulating development and increasing citizen participation along South Broadway

and along Santa Fe, and that the surrounding neighborhoods do thrive because of this team.

But again, for me, my vote was the result of neighborhood efforts,

and I appreciate you making it easier for me to take that step.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Council Member Alvidrez.

Thank you so much, Chancellor President,

for giving me another moment.

It's hard to make proclamations,

but you always leave people out.

And I look at this, and we didn't mention Jonathan and Noah,

who were the people that helped keep it together

and guide the process.

So I wanna shout them out, as well as the ownership group

and the team for continuing negotiations,

even though it was hard and we had to go back and forth.

I see Noah actually here, so thank you for being here.

And Jonathan's back there too.

Okay, I didn't even see you guys here

and I was giving you credit.

So you know how much I appreciate you all.

And I know there's a lot of R&Os listed on here.

And those presidents and all of those individuals

worked so hard on this.

And I just wanted to elevate that issue.

So thanks for giving me another moment to say that.

Thank you.

Thank you to everybody who worked on

the community benefit agreement,

gave up time away from your family

and made a stronger proposal

for the Women's Soccer Stadium.

A lot of thanks to you and your dedication to Denver.

Madam Secretary, roll call.

Council Members Sawyer?

Aye.

Albitrez?

Aye.

Flynn?

Aye.

Gilmore?

Aye.

Gonzales Gutierrez?

Hines?

Aye.

Cashman?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Parity?

Aye.

Romero Campbell?

Aye.

Torres? Aye. Watson? Aye. Madam President Sandoval? Aye. Madam Secretary, close the voting

now to the results. 12 ayes. 12 ayes. Proclamation 0021 has been adopted. We now have time for the

proclamation acceptance. Councilmember Alvarez, who would you like to call up? I would like to

invite the chairs to speak and also Noah and Jonathan, if they want to say anything,

leadership from the other RNOs that are here.

You know, Brittany's here with LBC and Shelby's here with 3PA.

I see someone from Baker.

So we want to start with the chairs.

And if anybody else wants to come up, that's fine as well.

Good evening, council members.

I really want to thank you all for your participation.

regardless of how you voted.

I just want to thank you guys for giving us this opportunity to come here

and fight for our communities and really represent.

And I just want to thank the leadership of Councilor Marvides on this

and always working with us.

I would like to also thank Jonathan and Noah and working with Denver Summit.

And we would like to continue moving forward

and hopefully all these investments that come into our communities

continue more than just 10 years.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone.

Adriana Lopez, Valverde Neighborhood Association President.

Thank you so much.

We really came to the table on this very honestly

with a lot of integrity on behalf of our neighborhood.

And I think I've mentioned before,

I'm joined by my parents today.

Our family goes back more than 60 years in southwest Denver.

And so this was a big deal for us.

It was a once-in-a-generation type of development, as you all know, for West Denver.

And we made good trouble, I would say, on the committee.

And at the end of the day, I think we got some really great benefits.

And so I do want to thank our council offices.

Councilwoman Alvedrez, thank you so much.

I know this is mostly in your district, and you still welcomed us to the table.

and Councilwoman Torres, you've been there for us since day one in our

neighborhood fighting for equity. So thank you all so much for all your

support during this process.

Good evening everybody, Tim Lopez from Baker and I want to say thank you for the

proclamation. We do appreciate it. Everybody on our steering committee,

everybody's worked really hard. Like I said for me, I did this in 2005 and again

in 2017 and now in 2025.

I think

Councilman Flynn,

you mentioned two generations.

My family actually goes back five.

So it's been a while.

But I wanted

to say with everybody who made comments

the last time around from

Councilman Parity to

everybody across the board, I went

back, listened to all the comments

and they were spot on. Whether you were

a yes or a no, whichever direction you went,

They were spot on, and I appreciate that because, as I say, I'm a policy guy.

I believe in fiscal management, and so I support the work that you guys all put in as well

because it means a lot, not just to our group, but to the City of Denver as well.

So thank you very much for that.

Connor Shea Baker, RNO.

Just wanted to say thank you to city council for putting their faith in us as community members.

Wanted to say thank you to Noah, Jonathan, and Lucas for the facilitation work over the last six months.

And, of course, to everyone on the steering committee and the co-chairs for all their work.

thank you to my real friend for dealing with me being at meetings every Wednesday and Thursday

for like six months and not breaking up with me because of that and yeah I'm very happy with what

we managed to get for the community out of this and I'm very happy to see that Summit has started

hiring women's soccer players from Golden and Highlands Ranch already and so it's nice to see

people getting to play for their home metro districts, I guess. Thank you to the team

for all their work and all the time that we spent together and for coming to a deal with

us. And yeah, thank you very much.

Anyone else? Council member?

Shelby is going to come up. Thank you, Shelby.

Shelby Drullis, president of 3PA, the Platte Park People's Association.

I'd just like to thank the fellow steering committee members, Jonathan, Noah, and the

team for just this fantastic opportunity to build community within the steering committee.

I think we tried to model what we wanted in our communities as we came together, bringing

people from different neighborhoods and realizing that this wasn't separate communities working

together, but one community that we're really trying to build. And so we really appreciate

your support in this process, and we hope that this carries forward as well. We hope to set models

for the Bronco Stadium and for future CBAs across the country. I think the team really worked with

us to show that they care about our neighborhoods, they care about the environment, they care about

supporting the people who live and work around the stadium, and we hope to carry that forward

for other engagements around the city,

building the Bronco Stadium.

And as I think Council Member Hines mentioned,

getting the LEED certification here,

I think was a huge win for all of us.

And so we really want to set that example

for other arenas, other stadiums,

that this is a real concern for people of Denver.

Environmental justice is really big.

Community justice is huge.

And we thank you for backing us on that

and giving us a chance to support our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, everyone.

All right, thank you all.

We have two required public hearings tonight.

As a reminder, council members need to turn on their video during the vote.

For those participating in person when called upon, please come to the podium.

On the presentation monitor on the wall, you will see your time counting down.

For those participating virtually, when called upon, please wait until our meeting host promotes you to speaker.

When you are promoted, please accept the promotion, turn on your camera if you have one, and your microphone.

All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names in cities of residence,

and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses.

If you have signed up to answer questions only, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council.

Speakers will have three minutes. There is no yielding of time.

If translation is needed, you will be given an additional three minutes for your comments to be interpreted.

Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to Council as a whole.

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech and refrain from individual or personal attacks.

Council Member Alvarez, will you please put Council Bill 25-1704,

approving and accepting the park building plan for the maintenance and operations facility,

equipment building, and storage building, all located in the city of Cornebaca Park,

pursuant to the provisions of section 29 through 2010 and 39 through 211 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code

on the floor for final passage.

Council Member.

Yeah.

Okay.

I move that Council Bill 25-1704 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.

It's been moved and seconded.

The required public hearing for Council Bill 25-1704 is open.

May we please have the staff report?

Good evening, Council President, President, Pro Tem, members of City Council.

Thanks.

Oh, the remote.

You guys are getting fancy down here in Power Widener.

Thank you. Awesome. Thank you so much for having me.

Joel Clark, Executive Director for Parks and Recreation.

What we have before you today, as you heard, is our park building plan at City of Cuernavaca for our maintenance facility.

This is not something that comes through council very often.

So similar to a rezoning, but the zoning is already in place on this site for OSA.

This is a specific park building plan that we'll be bringing forward today.

So as a reminder, and for those watching and following along, in the zoning code, if it is zoned OSA,

then there's a requirement for any building that's going to have a footprint over 3,000 square feet or 35 feet tall

has to come through all of the steps that you see on the other side, including notifying registered neighborhood associations

and culminating in a city council public hearing here today.

And so, again, not a zoning, but we're going to be walking specifically through, as you see,

where this building is in excess of 3,000 square feet, if it exceeds the heights,

and the maximum building square footage as we go through.

And so that will be where our presentation is centered today.

This is a map of our entire system looking at our maintenance facilities.

You'll see here that we have one headquarters for each of our five maintenance districts, with the exception of our Northwest District and our downtown district share a headquarters building.

And that is the building that we are here in front of you to talk about the replacement of.

The current headquarters for these groups is in a building that does not belong to Parks and Recreation.

And so we will have to be moving out of it.

And so this was a RISE bond funded project to replace that.

It will serve as the headquarters building for Northwest and downtown.

It will also house our director for park operations.

And our headquarters buildings, as you can see, spread throughout the city is where our district managers for each district are.

And it provides extra space on top of our satellite shops where we do trainings.

So there's a bigger conference room where those activities can see.

And then you can see our satellite facilities that are spread out throughout the city that support our headquarters.

This is a little bit more zoomed in on what we're talking about.

This is in close proximity to the Park Avenue location, which we're currently using.

That's not our building and that we'll have to be moving out of.

You also see some of the teams and staff that are currently in the Park Avenue facility, including our downtown operations,

global operations, our I-70 cap, we'll have rangers, and then vehicle equipment, storage,

and maintenance. That Park Avenue shop, in addition to being a building that we need to move out of,

has not been updated in a long time. It is not ideal working conditions for our employees. And

so as we get the opportunity through these to upgrade our buildings and really create

solid workspaces for our teams, we are always excited about that.

This is a map view of City of Quarinovaca Park where you can see in the larger context right along I-25 there in the far edge of downtown along the South Platte River.

And then you can see the site where the maintenance shop will be is that site highlighted in red on the left and then blown up a little bit there on the other side of your screen.

And then this is the plan.

This is what we're here under the charter requirement to have our public hearing and talk to you about.

So this is the layout of the site as we have planned it and showing the facility.

So you can see it is 11,000 square feet of an operations and maintenance building above that 3,000 square foot threshold.

It is a pre-engineered metal building.

You can see the height does not exceed the 35 feet, but again, the total size does.

We also have a couple outbuildings, the equipment building, and a secured storage building in addition to the parking and yard space that you see on here and then blown up on the second image.

This is the timeline for our park building plan.

It was in front of the South Platte River Committee, as you see on November 12th, Mayor Council on November 18th, first reading on November 24th.

And then we had a postponed public hearing and second reading, which is now today.

and you'll see our RNO notification went out on December 3rd.

So we are here today requesting your approval of the park building plan

for our new maintenance facility at the city of Cronovac Park.

And I think I will save a slide for questions,

but I think I'll probably wait until after the public hearing for that.

Thank you, Council President.

We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening.

If you are here in person after your name is called, please make your way up to the front bench.

If you are on Zoom, please accept the promotion when called upon.

Let's see.

First up, we have Stefania Eskridge.

Next up we have Reverend Dr. Jose Silva.

Next up we have Lanika James.

Next up we have Scott Gilmore.

Hello.

Thank you so much for having me here.

Thank you City Council, Council President, Council Pro Tem.

I just want to speak to this maintenance shop due to the fact that I have been actively involved in parks and recreation for over 14 years as the deputy executive director.

Prior to that, I was on parks and rec advisory board for eight years.

And a lot of the work that I did was to try to ensure equity across the city and trying to fight for communities that have been left out and forgotten about.

Now, as the RISE bond was passed back in 2022, I believe, there was $17.9 million, or was it 17.9?

There was 17 point, sorry, $15.8 million allocated for two maintenance shops.

Clearly, when you pull up the RISE bond documents, it says 7.9 for a maintenance shop in District 11, 7.9 for a maintenance shop in District 1.

Lo and behold, they have now, I understand this is to approve the plan, and there's no fiscal note tied to this, but there is a fiscal note tied to this.

Because if you approve this plan the way it is, it removes $5.4 million out of District 11 and puts it in District 1.

And that is not what the voters in district or across the city voted for.

I was totally supportive of the plan that is moved forward with Quantavaca.

I was the one that actually secured the land to build that maintenance shop.

I was the one that suggested to the planning team to move the sidewalk to make more room so they'd have space.

I was the one that negotiated with River Mile to get an extra million dollars to put toward this shop as River Mile was built out.

I don't see anywhere in any kind of documentation where that million dollars is.

This district, District 1, and this downtown area has six satellite shops and headquarters.

Montbello, the largest contiguous, all the way from Peoria, all the way to Piccadilly, all the way to the airport, is a high green, high need area.

And it does not have a maintenance shop.

And what they want to build, what Parks and Rec is now suggesting to build, is a $2.5 million tough shed, glorified tough shed that will look horrible in the community.

It is not right.

I ask you to oppose this in the form that it is until these two things should have been brought together and not to the River Mile Committee.

It should have been brought to the Parks Committee.

Thank you.

Next up we have Tinsley Orr.

Tinsley.

And our last speaker is Lawrence Marie.

Alright.

That concludes our speakers. Do we have questions

from members of council on council bill 1704?

Councilmember Gilmore?

Thank you.

My first question is for Director Clark.

Since this was split up, this was one line item on the rise bond,

on, what is the process for the balance of the funds, the 2.5 million?

When is that going to come before council or will that never come before council?

There are many actions that come forward to council through all of this, including

the construction contract, which this is not for this parcel either.

So anything over the council thresholds, which 2.5 million would be, I don't know if we know

when that would come through council,

but the construction contract would come through council?

For both?

For both.

All right.

Thank you for that.

So with the diversion of funds or the switching of funds,

you know, we served on Denver City Council.

I think we were even in leadership at the same time when,

or you might have finished up with leadership, that's right.

Because, yeah, I was in my first year of leadership, and it was very clear that on the RISE bond package, because as you well know, everybody's negotiating for that vote to refer it to the ballot.

And so how in the past with other projects has there ever been anything less than a 50-50 split of those bond dollars?

It would be like, for example, the indoor pools that were on the previous bond, that one neighborhood got 84% of those dollars for an indoor pool, and one neighborhood got 16%.

And so who made that decision to change the split of those funds?

Thank you for the question.

And I want to be very clear.

There was no diversion of funds here.

This was in a bundle that is different than named projects in the bond.

Parks and Recreation has done tennis court bundles, basketball bundles, pool bundles.

In those bundles is exceedingly rare that every project gets the same amount of money.

That bundle covers all those things.

Our planning team works very closely with our operations team, our recreation team,

or whoever that bundle is for to identify the needs for those different projects.

And they have different needs.

They have different site constraints.

Some of them might be removing something that has asbestos versus removing something that doesn't.

So this was, yes, a bundle of two, but as you saw on our map, this was designed to be a satellite facility and a headquarters facility.

And so those budgets were never intended to be split 50-50.

They weren't named projects.

Within that bundle, we work with our partners at the Department of Finance as we work through that scope with our operational staff

to determine how to deliver on the needs within that bundle in each location.

So I would disagree. Two items for $15.8 million, that's a couple. One, two. That's not a bundle. That's not what you're representing, like, with tennis courts, with other maintenance sort of improvements that it might hit different districts.

It was very clear, District 1 and District 11.

And so I think you're taking great freedom with that terminology of bundle in it.

And so I want to make sure that I'm pointing that out.

Jolin, tell me, you know, you served on city council for eight years.

I'm wrapping up three terms.

Because Montbello, where I live and I've raised my family, is the only historically intact

African American community in Denver.

And it's over 60 years old.

Montbello is 60 years old.

And Green Valley Ranch is close to 45 years.

Please explain to the council and the community who's watching and listening, how exactly

does this community in District 11 still not justify proper maintenance facilities when the

voters, when they voted on it, expected that they were going to be able to get equivalent because

there's cost efficiencies in doing two same maintenance shops. And so how are you, please

explain to me and the community how you're going to address equity through this decision.

Yeah, thank you for the call.

I can also say that for Council District 1, it's for a building.

There's not a fiscal note attached to it.

If you read the ordinance.

For a building, respectfully, Council President, if we approve this, it says in the PowerPoint

how many buildings, how many square feet.

That's not air.

It's a point.

Those are dollars.

No, it's not. It's not. It's a plan.

How can you do it with dollars? It's the rise bond dollars.

Contract for that will come through. City Council, he just answered.

And the contract for the Maintenance District and Council District 11 will come through.

Those will all come through.

If you could please answer the question.

Yeah, and again, I want to clarify that this is absolutely not as was characterized to glorify toughshed.

This is being built for justice and for equity.

How are you explaining putting a $2.5 million shed in the most diverse communities of color in the entire city and putting something different in another area?

I appreciate the answer without help.

As I just said, let me finish.

This is not as it was characterized.

I never characterized it.

It is not a glorified shed.

This will have all of the things that were listed out in the bond that is our new thing.

This will have a plumbed restroom.

It will have lockers.

It will have all of the things, and it is being built with the same materials that the Cuernavaca shop, that all of the shops that we're building right now are being built with.

So that is categorically false that this will be.

With all the shops, if you wouldn't mind, because the shop that you just showed is not a prefabricated building.

Yes, it is.

It's going to have my presentation.

It's on the PowerPoint.

But it's going to have an outside facade to it.

It's much bigger.

It costs $13.3 million, so it's got to be different than the $2.5 million model.

Are you saying they're equivalent?

Materiality will be the same.

The design will be the same.

It is the size.

The need for cost.

Yes, because it is much more expensive to build a bigger version.

Oh, okay.

But that is what's needed in the central area versus a satellite office.

We just completed last year our headquarters for the Northeast District.

It is a bigger building that does have those things.

We don't have anywhere else in the city where we would build a second one that is that big.

We build smaller satellite shows.

The community that you just built that, would you tell us what the demographics are of that

community where you just built that structure?

On Smith Road in Havana, I don't have that right in front of me, but these are maintenance

shops.

They're not open to the public.

There is no impact to our residents on where these shops are.

Most of the time people fight us on they don't want these shops right there.

They were like the parkland.

We also spent $2.4 million acquiring the property

for this maintenance facility that we're building as well.

Which maintenance facility?

The northeast one.

We did not spend money.

But that's not part of, that wasn't part of bond dollars

to acquire it, was it?

No, it was not.

Okay.

So then that's not part of the conversation

with these bond dollars.

And so I've got two more questions.

I understand.

Now, this public hearing is not about bond dollars.

This public hearing is a request

for a building facility in Kornebakavok Park.

There's no bond dollars-

How is that building facility going to get there?

You can make the ascertain,

you can determine how you want.

I'm telling you what the public hearing is about.

It says it right there.

It says in the order of approving and accepting

the park building plan for the maintenance

and operation facility equipment and storage.

This is not a conversation about-

If I may, Council President?

Yes.

If you can please keep on the public, the conversation on the public hearing at hand.

Sure.

Because I guess this building is going to be built with air, but okay.

So, Joellen, what's the written documentation that exists before, let's say three months ago,

that clearly stipulates and shows on the RISE bond website,

on the council micro priorities document that Carolina Flores sent out

to this entire council in September of 2024,

it says clearly that $7.9 million is going to District 11.

Why did that change?

You didn't talk to the council member.

You didn't bring anything through city council.

Why did that change and why was there no communication to the community or to council as a whole?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

As is common with bundled projects, when that bundle gets inputted into the spreadsheet before the projects have been fully scoped,

then they will often split that across the projects equally, whether there are 10 of them or two of them.

That is what happened, that put that number in there.

That was not the budget for each project,

but that is what went in the dashboard.

You asked about three months ago.

I do have the presentation here.

I did not include it today

because we're not talking about that,

but my team was able to provide the presentation

that they gave you in your office in last March

that clearly showed that this was a $2.5 million

maintenance facility.

It flagged that we were about to start moving into design

and extending-

I was asking questions about it then

because I said I didn't want that in the neighborhood

and that you were diverting funds.

So appreciate you putting that on the record.

No more questions, Jolyn.

You can sit down.

This is my time at city council.

I'm sorry, but respectfully.

I don't have any more questions.

That was not-

Council president, please.

I'm-

I'm gonna finish the question.

I'll finish my comments.

If you did that in March,

if you did that in March of this year, Jolyn.

Identify any concerns with it at that time.

Thank you, council president.

March of this year March of this year you go ahead I have very clearly there's

different rules for different council members here and if you would have

never allowed another council comments at the end it's like that they're in

in front of people.

We're in the public questions.

We are at questions.

I was trying to ask questions,

but you kept interrupting me.

If that's how you see it,

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

I'm going ahead and saying my comments.

I'm done for this portion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis?

I'm out.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Council Member Tars?

Thank you so much, Jolin,

and maybe for finance as well.

There's a 2021 RISE general obligation bond program project list dated July 26, 2021 that's online

that has the two facilities broken out with equal budget.

So I'm just trying to understand because I know like Westwood Rec Center needed, I don't know,

16 to 19 million more dwellers.

Still consider those dollars part of what was needed

to create that project.

Is there any, well I guess I want to understand

what we're going to see when we see the far northeast

satellite building or plan come through.

I'm assuming we have to have a similar process for that one.

Does that need to be approved in the same way

that this one does?

I'm not sure, Emily, is that one over 3,000 square feet?

Okay, so prior to the size, it won't go through this,

but the construction contract would come through.

Okay. I guess I want to understand a little bit more

about how it went through that.

Before I answer something, Emily,

you want to come over and just answer?

Good afternoon, Emily Ziegler,

Assistant Director, Park Design and Construction.

Just one correction, it is anticipated

that the construction contract for the Northeast shop

will go through DOTI on call,

so that contract will not come through council.

The Cornivaca shop will come through council

because that's a GMP and likely to be up

for your consideration next week.

So tell me how, because this one is obviously costing

more than 7 million, it's all coming from that original amount

of 15 point something million, as opposed to the Northwest,

like cobbling together maybe it's the budget that's,

I forget the name of the budget that's left over just in case.

But that funding, like talk to me a little bit more

about how that was determined.

Nicole Doheny, Chief Financial Officer.

I think Joel and actually in one of his earlier answers spoke a little bit about how we approach this.

So when these projects came through in a single bundle as part of the RISE process,

the projects were named in the ordinance as a single line parks maintenance bundle.

There was $15.8 million planned and allocated across the two projects in the project cost worksheets

that we share with council as council is going through the process to think through those projects.

As Joel mentioned, when we have these bundles, at the time the dashboard is put up,

generally these projects are in a bundle because they are not yet planned, because there is more

work to do and there is refinement of design and scope that we need to do.

When that occurs, frequently what happens as a default in the system is the

dollars are divided by the number of projects in the bundle and then

conceptually allocated that way while the planning process is underway.

It is not a signal of an actual allocation of dollars and it does not contravene the approach

or the language within the bond ordinance. So this project has taken a little bit longer

to work through with the two facilities.

And this proposal that Jolin shared is the planned allocation of the dollars amount,

one for the headquarters facility, and then one for the satellite facility

to complement the new headquarters facility in the Northeast.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

The other thing I'm looking at are the individual project summaries.

And for this one, both will have office space, restrooms, lockers, training facilities, covered vehicle storage.

Just making sure Emily's nodding, but this is the bond scope that I was told earlier will be at both facilities.

Again, the size of it as a headquarter.

Just smaller of everything.

For those who can't hear on the microphone,

Washington TV, she said same scope, smaller scale

for a satellite versus a headquarters.

If you want to come up, you have to answer from the microphone

if you're going to answer in the public hearing.

Thank you.

And I'm just going to list out what I'm seeing in the document.

Covered vehicle storage, fuel station, wash bay,

parking, courtyard gathering spaces for staff.

I think that's all I see.

Yes on all of those?

Yep, both shops will have all of those.

Just a different scale.

I guess the only other question, somewhere in one of these two documents that I was looking at,

there was a commitment to sharing each project will include a public outreach phase

to engage the neighborhoods where these facilities will be constructed.

What did that look like for both of them?

So we have a public meeting scheduled in two weeks for the Northeast shop.

Public engagement can look a little bit different based off of the level of public interface.

And so we have kind of a sliding scale between informational versus feedback.

So I'd have to kind of go back and understand what was done for the Kornavaka shop.

But not every project is treated the same.

Sometimes we have, you know, multiple touch points.

Usually for maintenance centers, we don't really typically have many just because it's not a public facing amenity.

The reason why this hiring is postponed is because they forgot to send a notice to the RNO.

So our RNOs did not get notified.

And this was on public hearing.

And one of my RNOs in Highland who has the city of Cornavaca Park part of it contacted me, the chair,

and was wondering why he didn't get a notification.

We caught that that night and then we had to postpone it

because the works and rec did not send out

the RNO notification.

So then we had to postpone that hearing that night

and repost it and then they sent out the notification

to all the RNOs in council district one and in that area.

And that's the only notification

that has happened to my community.

Other than that, I have been briefed on this

since probably working for council member Espinosa.

Got it.

A need for a maintenance shop in either north.

That was when it was just all northwest Denver district facility,

and then downtown broke off.

Okay.

And so just so I'm clear, you didn't get a meeting last year.

I got a meeting in the summer of last year about the funding,

and the scope had changed.

It was turned into a prefab facility, and I wasn't aware of that,

and I was made aware of that.

Got it.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Next up, Council Member Parity.

Yeah, so I'm understanding that this is about Coronavaca.

I'm just trying to, because we've had so many constituent questions about it

and including some that submitted comment for tonight,

I do want to try to understand this allocation of bond funding.

So, well, Emily, were you with the Parks Department in 2021 in your role?

Director Clark, I know you weren't with us then,

but I think that my questions are probably for you.

And I would appreciate this is,

especially for those of us that weren't here in 2021,

it is a bit of a fire hose.

And so if you could slow down the answers,

I would really appreciate it.

I could not understand the exchanges,

the answers that you were giving to Council Member Gilmore.

So my question is really just this.

When the bond projects were being considered,

I totally understand the concept of a bundle.

It makes sense to me that you might just distribute

the costs evenly.

But at that point in time, do you have any kind of records or even just memories of people

that were working there at the time that say like, yes, when we created this bundle, we

affirmatively had in mind just a satellite?

Like is there, or was that to be determined?

Or was it in fact the opposite where it was intended to be a full shop and then it got

scaled back?

Like what do we know about?

I don't really care about anything since then.

Like I'm really only thinking about before the package was put to the voters in council.

Because I was with the department to ask those same questions.

And so I have Jill Kaufman who is the Director

of Operations here with me and what she has told me

and you can hear directly from her on that.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms. Kaufman.

Hello.

You guys had to date me.

I've been with the department approximately 26 years.

Twenty-one is no time though.

Yeah.

You could have just went with that.

So ironically, Mr. Gilmore was my direct supervisor at the time.

And so I was the person originally on the first design of the Rosedale facility.

And so that would have been our first new building ever, at least for the time that I had been there.

So from that design, that was going to be our regional facility design.

And at that time, we also established a satellite facility design.

Hence, Green Valley was to be a satellite facility forever.

Montbello is the house where our manager lives with us transporting staff to Green Valley.

That staff in Green Valley then would now have this fabulous new building to be in proximity to the park space out there.

Can you explain to me why you said Rosedale was regional

and therefore GVR was satellite?

Why does that follow, if that makes sense?

And it follows in all these buildings, to be honest with you.

Our regional facilities, in terms of Rosedale,

was the opportunity to place a new building in the southwest area.

That's at ILIF and Logan.

Prior to that, we had a very old building at Washington Park,

which I'm sure Councilman Cashman is very aware, but that didn't make sense to try to fabricate for a regional facility.

We found the opportunity to take Rosedale, build it out for where the manager of that park district would be,

along with, in fact, another work group, and that set the tone or the design for regional facilities.

All right. With that, Kornivaka, in fact, I worked at Kornivaka, was always not our building.

It was never intended to remain our building.

So I guess what I'm trying to establish here is that the Rosedale facility, Councilwoman Parity, set the footprint for what a regional facility would look like.

And at the same time, we developed what a satellite facility would look like.

Hence, we move forward to Montbello, where our park manager is established.

That's our regional base.

That's where that manager and building is.

Green Valley was always going to be the satellite facility.

Hence, that's why we have a smaller footprint out there.

And, in fact, I just want to say this for the record, we're thrilled.

We'll finally be in proximity to Green Valley and be able to serve that community better.

similar is we have a property at 5060 North Logan, which puts us in the Goldville neighborhood.

Ideally that's only, Emily please, you moved on me. What's the square footage of 5060 North

Logan? It's pretty small. It's very small. I think it's under a thousand square feet.

It's a converted home. And so we look for an opportunity. Please repeat what Emily said.

Did you not hear that? No, it has to be on the mic so folks can hear it.

It's less than 1,000 square feet, and we took an opportunity to have a satellite facility in Platform

so that we'd be in proximity to the Globeville I-70 cap.

So I'm trying to establish logic that we have regional facilities where our park manager,

then our satellite facilities where our operations supervisors and, you know, like 20 at max personnel will be.

Fair?

And then just going back to like that exact time frame though, in terms of 21.

Yeah.

Like when the bond planning was happening, what do we have that, I mean, it would just

be great if we could see something showing that this was what was contemplated, especially

for those of us that weren't here.

You know, I'm trying to sort of like do my words for.

Help me out here, Emily.

I think Gordon Robertson, myself, and unfortunately Emily's coming into a system, but these were the footprints that the department established.

Thus, planning, design, and construction utilized that template moving forward.

Yeah, I'm not aware of a formal document, but I think that, you know, there's one headquarter at most per maintenance district.

There's not a scenario that we have more than one headquarters per maintenance district.

More would we need one.

And the downtown and northwest, in fact, share a headquarters.

Okay.

What defines the size of a maintenance district?

Is it number of facilities, square footage?

Like, how do you break those out to make sure that they're relatively equal in size?

Does that make sense?

of the maintenance districts.

Dr. Bradshaw.

A regional facility, and it's unique for Cornevaca,

is going to house the Northwest manager and staff,

the director of park operations,

the downtown park operations manager and staff.

So we actually have a unique building

where three different folks will live.

In design of the Rosedale facility back in 21, we looked at the current staff size,

and we anticipated what it would look like in five years as the city grew, so then staff would grow.

Yeah, and I'm not talking about the size of the facility.

I'm talking about when you're defining the district that's, like, in a regional catchment area, you know, that feeds up to that headquarters.

If you're defining an actual district within Parks and Rec, how do you make sure that all of those maintenance districts are approximately equal?

Are you counting square footage within the city?

Are you counting number of DPR facilities?

We have it broken out by approximately its irrigated acres in a maintenance district.

So if East District is 550 acres and Northwest is 490, something like that, it's equivalent, right?

I would love to see that.

Sure.

We'll return a document to you.

That would be incredibly helpful.

Sure.

I think that's all that I have.

Thank you so much.

That's hugely helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Council Member Cashman.

Yes, ma'am.

Don't move.

Don't move.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Jill, for being here.

So I guess my main concern is that all the districts are well-maintained.

When the Platt Park, the Rosedale facility was being proposed,

the neighbors weren't happy it was so big because it backed up against a community garden.

My concern is that the whole city, equity-wise, it's the same level of maintenance.

Tell me that's going to be done and how does it matter where the regional facility is located

and the satellite facility is located.

Does the satellite neighborhood get a different level of maintenance than the region?

Can you just address all that?

Thank you, Councilman Cashman.

You and I know each other very well.

Spent a lot of time talking and going through staffing levels in a place like Washington Park.

It's thought out very carefully, and it's thought out around, as I mentioned, irrigated acres.

And so it would be unfair to give Green Valley or Cornavaca an uneven amount of staff to take care of the amount of acreage that they have in their area.

So for each district, there's five districts.

We each have a manager in that district.

Within that, we have five operations supervisors for oversight.

Thus, we take the irrigated acres and we divide out how many particular type of workers we need.

We have a maintenance technician that can take care of a certain number of sprinkler heads,

or a park horticulturist who can manage a number of horticultural responsibilities,

filling that with either utility workers and then the on-call seasonal base.

And so we take that number. There's a model about what we need for each district. At a regional facility, such as Rosedale, we know that the only difference is that's where our hub is. That's where our park manager is.

And so we can better identify that they have one facility with outreaches to their operations supervisors.

And exactly what you said, it levels the playing field in this, that downtown park operations will now have its own building.

It's all its supervisors, if need be, can come to one place.

Same thing for Northwest.

It'll have its manager. It'll have its one operation supervisor, but it's going to allow the oversight to be more, I guess, level.

Right now, currently, the park manager for Northwest is housed in Sloan's Lake, traveling all the way to I-70 and Steel.

If you can see that now this person's in the downtown or I-70, I-25, the drive time alone is cut down.

So oversight's going to be improved.

And exactly what you said, then park maintenance is going to be more level.

Same thing for Green Valley.

We are traveling approximately 40 to 45 minutes to leave Montbello and move to Green Valley.

With us in Green Valley, it's minutes.

I mean, I expect that our service level will only increase.

Does that answer?

Providing a more equitable, standardized park maintenance system.

It's almost an inference that by having a regional facility in Quernafaka

and a satellite in Green Valley,

Green Valley is going to get lesser maintenance than another area.

I disagree respectfully.

Right now, the staff that services Green Valley is actually being housed out of Montbello.

So everything that we do is transported from Montbello to Green Valley

in approximately 40 minutes of transportation one way.

So that's 80 minutes round trip.

with us in Green Valley will be in proximity to those parks.

We have no commute like that.

Our facility houses the equipment, the fuel, the supplies.

So it'll actually increase the ability

to serve those citizens in those park systems.

Thank you.

That's all men.

Thank you, Joe.

Councilman Gilmore.

Thank you.

I have a question for Scott Gilmore to come up, please.

It seemed like it was a little wishy-washy how you all were making decisions over there.

And so, Scott, would you please explain for council and the viewers the history of even having a satellite shop?

Because it wasn't a satellite shop.

It was a test template shop to justify having a regional shop right down the road on South Platte.

So please.

So there's a lot of nuances to Scott Gilmore,

community member from Montbello.

Just a clarification, the shop in far northeast

is not in Montbello, it is actually in Central Park on,

yeah, thank you.

And so these shops, when I came into my job,

the shops were in incredibly poor shape.

So that was a real goal to really improve the shops.

So as the staff has said,

we worked really hard to find funding.

We built the Rosedale shop.

Vastly beautiful shop, beautiful structure,

and we put it there.

That became the template of what should be built for a shop.

There was no regional shop and satellite shop.

I'm gonna be clear there.

This was the shop that was the template to build.

We moved forward, we built that same model shop

at Central Park.

That is where the $7.9 million comes from

because that is how much it costs to build those shops.

I'm not specifically sure of how many square feet

those shops are, but it's probably about half

the 17,000 square feet that they're gonna build

at Quantavaca because at there, that facility,

I believe is gonna be two stories.

Two stories.

That shop is going to be two stories.

There is no two-story shop in our facility.

So that is not even the regional shop that they're talking about

because now you've gone from a shop that they say is the regional model

and they've actually doubled it in size and they've gone two stories.

They've added an elevator.

That means the 7.9 that was the model that we used for Rosedale

and for Central Park now became the 13.5.

That is the plan that they're asking you to approve today.

So because the facility expanded

and they're building this to replace the Park Avenue shop,

I'm not saying that's wrong.

I believe that the staff truly needs the shops

that they need to work out of to respect them,

to honor them.

But that doesn't mean that you build when you have a model shop that you're building.

There is no shop there.

Havana is where the shop is.

You have to drive all the way to Piccadilly.

And now they're building parks on Tower and 70th.

So truly, there needs to be a shop that can be looked at, like Jill said.

Five years from now, we have parks online, a lot of parks online.

We have medians online.

We have trails online out in Far North.

That is the area that is growing, and they're going to, excuse my language when I said glorified tough shed,

it's going to be a glorified fabricated metal shed that is the same type of model as at Centennial.

The shop at Centennial was actually placed there by my team to actually justify the square footage for the Quantavaca shop.

That was not supposed to be a long-term shop at Centennial Gardens.

It was supposed to be there to make sure that we built the right facility at Quantavaca, which they're trying to do.

But you don't take money from one community, especially a community of need, the highest community of need, and move it to a community of lesser need based on DPR's own equity map.

I've done this work for so long, and I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay?

So.

Another question, Madam President.

Thank you.

Council Member Flynn?

Thank you, Madam President.

Joel, I don't know if you or Jill who is the better to answer, but does the Parks Department have any kind of a master plan for growing satellite facilities where they're needed?

Is there anything laid out as to where we go from here?

So once the RISE bond passed and my supervisor and I looked at the maintenance facilities,

it was about that time as I became the new director of parks operations.

You know, it was a growing phenomenon in I-70, basically at I-25 moving east.

and that whole corridor was developing.

We looked at, it was never not a discussion

to have a satellite facility in Green Valley.

That was obvious.

It was also very obvious that we needed to have something

in between around the I-70 cap or just west of that

because of the amount of traffic and drive time

that we were facing to try to leave the Sloan's Lake Maintenance Facility at Sheridan and 17th

and travel to I-70 and steal.

Scott Gilmore and I, you know, together spoke with Gordon Robertson of Planning.

It became fruition that we found a property that just happened to be for sale.

That is the growth that I know.

That is the last of the growth except for the sunken garden area, which we looked at for maybe not a satellite facility, but like I was able to buy a construction trailer.

And that put us in proximity of that park space as well.

And so, Councilman, that is the growth that I know.

There has not been any more discussion at this time for more satellite facilities.

Let me understand the Carnivark facility would be a district, five districts.

This would be the headquarters for two of those districts in one site.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So you'll see we have five maintenance districts, but only four headquarters.

In addition to that, it will house Jill, our director of operations.

So right now, where is the district headquarters for Northwest?

Where is that located?

I want you to speak to that.

So, currently, there is a, the manager of Northwest occupies the 17th and Sheridan.

Yeah, at Sloan's Lake.

Yeah, at Sloan's Lake.

We also, though, have.

That behaves as the district headquarters.

Only because of the space at the Kornavaka shop.

Currently, we are out of space.

We also have one of the Northwest supervisors at the Kornabaka shop.

Okay.

Let me understand now, Joel, and maybe this is for you, five districts that each has a headquarters,

and right now you would combine two of them at Kornabaka, so we have four headquarters facilities for the five districts.

It looks to me like each of the maintenance districts has four, at least four satellite facilities,

except for downtown, which has three, and northeast, which has only two.

Northeast would gain a third at Green Valley Ranch.

The reason I asked whether there's a master plan for growing the satellite facilities

is because as Northeast continues to grow,

you mentioned a park at the 70th and Tower.

Obviously, there's going to be a need for another one

out somewhere out there.

I don't know where.

Havana, that is the district headquarters for Northeast.

Central Park is the satellite facility.

Correct.

And then they have Lowry.

And where's the Green Valley Ranch facility?

Where is that?

47th and Telluride, 46, 47th, between 46 and 47th on Telluride.

Okay, thank you.

If I can, on a couple of your questions, we don't have a comprehensive, you know, vision plan for all the maintenance shops.

That's an identified need, just like we're right now.

We are, just have launched, you know, comprehensive vision plan for our recreation centers.

similar to our recreation centers, which were,

if you go throughout our system, they look very different.

Even if you go to all the regional centers

versus all the neighborhood versus all of the thing.

And because there were different opportunities

over different decades.

The team has a great slide that shows all the way back,

you know, 100 years of how those came online.

And there were federal funding for specific things

that built a whole bunch that are kind of the same thing.

So we are embarking on that now with the community,

with all of you, and with our staff to talk about,

what if you could, it's a very different system if you just say, hey, here's Denver,

where would you put rec centers today, knowing the full scope of Denver? But a lot of these

maintenance shops were opportunistic. As you heard, there was a former house that was converted

when there was a need in that area. And as the city has grown in different, your neck of the

woods was rapidly expanding prior to Poundstone and developed in a different way than some of the

core areas. And so something that we'll continue to look at and do need to do that vision plan,

these two are two top areas that were identified. We have a central location that houses a lot of

stuff, serves a lot of folks that we need to be moved out of. And we have an area that's growing

very quickly that needs less windshield time. And so that's what got into that. But yes, we need

And in addition to that, the existing shops that we have are not all where we want them to be.

That's where we worked on standards about lockers and bathrooms.

There's a maintenance shop at one of our golf courses that does not have a restroom.

The folks who work there have to leave their shop and go outside and upstairs into the pro shop to be able to use the restroom because there's not a bathroom in there.

And so that's where Jill was talking about establishing, you know, kind of the standards for what a headquarter shop, what a satellite shop would look like.

They also vary dramatically in size because of the opportunity of whatever happened or

the funding that was available at the time.

And so all of that is the future vision moving forward from here.

All right, thank you.

Just so I understand clearly, this, what we're having a hearing on right now is the combined

regional, a district rather, regional headquarters for two districts combined.

Correct.

And as a reminder, the downtown district is the newest of the districts.

a very long time there were four districts. The team decided that there was a need again as we

talked about as the city grows well that changed ultimately that plan of how districts are and

what their boundaries are based on irrigated acres and all that so it's determined that at some point

that downtown would become its own district and so there was a lot most of the overlap between

the original northwest district is with the downtown district and that's why they currently

You only see four, and we're continuing that with this opportunity.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis?

Oh, sorry.

Emily wants to clarify something.

No, don't.

I just want to say that the level of care that a park receives is not dictated whether the staff is coming from a headquarter or a satellite office,

but geographically it makes a difference.

The longer drive time to those areas make a difference.

And so just because staff is coming from a satellite office doesn't mean that the parks that that office is serving gets less care.

It is not really sustainable to repeat a lot of infrastructure.

You know, large maintenance bays, training facilities, those types of amenities work really well to have a headquarter per district or per two districts.

What we really need distributed geographically are wash bays, fuel stations, areas to store the equipment so staff can report right there, pick up their equipment, and be within an easy drive of the parks that they service.

So in no way would a park close to a headquarter get a higher level of care than a park close to a satellite office.

And I will say, related to the size of the Kornavaka facility and it being two stories, that site is very constrained.

We looked at a lot of different options to have one level because elevators are expensive,

but there was just no way to fit in a large building on one floor and get all of the necessary

parking and storage.

So we had to build up to work within the constraints of that site.

Thank you.

Councilman Lewis.

Thanks, Council President.

If this is not appropriate, you can put me up.

But I wanted to know about the bond piece of this in which Scott Gilmore talked about moving money from District 11 to District 1.

Can you speak more about that?

Because if that's the case, it is concerning.

But I would just appreciate if someone would opine.

Sure.

So Nicole Doheny, Chief Financial Officer.

So the history is the RISE bond did dedicate $15.8 million for a bundle that was entitled Parks Maintenance Facility Construction.

And so D1 and D11 were identified in the cost worksheet

as part of the bond process as the likely locations

that facilities would be invested in.

There was a sense that there would be two facilities.

There is no movement of funds, change in use of funds,

or any action required.

This is entirely in compliance with the RISE ballot question,

the RISE ordinance, and the RISE project cost worksheets

that were shared at the time the bond was passed.

For my identification, obviously I wasn't here.

So the $15 million was for both $11 and $1?

That's correct.

And what was the, or what is, what was, I don't know what the question is,

to determine what the allocation would be for either of the two?

Yeah, so, I mean, Parks, perhaps, Jolene, you can talk a little more about the design process

that you all understood to look at what you needed for your operational needs.

So the numbers today are $13.3 million for the combined facility serving two districts as a regional facility.

And then the $2.5 million for construction of the Parks Maintenance Facility.

So that's the $13.3 plus $2.5 gets you $15.8.

And Parks has supplemented funding for the Green Valley Ranch facility to pay for the land acquisition associated with it.

So the total investment in that facility is approximately $5.3 million.

So it's $13.3 for the regional serving two districts and $5.3 for the Green Valley Ranch facility.

Joel, I'm happy for you to talk about the process.

Yeah, that process is very driven by our employees.

These are the facilities that they work out of.

Again, not public-facing, but very inward-facing to folks showing up every day.

And so our planning, design, and construction team does an awesome job going out and working with our operations team,

Jill's teams in these areas to see what do they need,

what are their pinch points,

what would make their job easier in those areas.

And again, that was looking at,

hey, we're going to get kicked out of a shop

that is already so full,

we can't do some things in that space

and have to do some of that in another one.

And the need for headquarters

and to put those managers

and the need to reduce drive time

and windshield time out in the Northeast.

So that was completely done at the staff level

between our planning team and our operations team

telling them what they needed,

and then they scope the projects out to try to deliver

on what the operational folks are telling us

that they need in those projects.

That's often why they're bundled

is because then we can have those conversations

like we would at rec centers.

Each rec center might need something different,

and we wanna work with our staff to hear,

hey, it's the front desk that's really a problem

and it's location at this one,

versus it's the floor in the locker room

that's a problem at a different one.

And this may be for Nicole,

but how did you get to the 15?

Was there a discussion about like X,

I have two questions actually now I think about it.

So with the ballot language within,

for the ballot language,

was it specific to like X rec center

will get this amount of money,

X rec center will get this amount of money

in the ballot question?

No, the bundles are always here are the places

that will get money and here's the total money

that will be split across them.

Not necessarily a specific allocation for either of the two.

So then PDC works with Operation Folks to get their wish list in both locations

and then starts to parse out.

We can deliver all of those things.

We can deliver all of these things, does some initial scoping

until they can get to a budget where we're able to deliver on those things

for both locations or all 10 locations.

How do you arrive at the 15 million to begin with?

Is it a, go ahead, it sounds like you're going to answer us.

I don't have to do that.

Again, I think RISE was our COVID-era bond, so it moved differently than Vibrant, for instance,

where it was moving to spur the economy, and it moved very quickly within that crisis.

And so I don't know, Emily wasn't here, so I don't want to put her on the spot for specific,

but generally they would go and say, hey, we know we need generally a headquarters building and a satellite building,

and they cost generally this much.

We think we can deliver it for these and do the best scoping that they can.

But then that is informed by our employees saying, hey, this is what we need.

This is what we need.

And this is what we need.

And so, again, it was never scoped as two headquarter buildings.

It was scoped as a headquarter.

That was my next question.

So you beat me to it.

I appreciate it.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

Councilor Patel, Mayor Campbell.

Thank you.

I think last questions kind of covered a lot of what I wanted to ask.

I just want to go back to that strategic plan for the maintenance facilities.

Is that something that's in the works?

We don't currently have that budgeted, but it's definitely something that's on our work list.

You know, we'll start, like the recreation vision plan took many years for us to get to,

and now we're in it, and those things, you know, continue to work through.

So, yes, definitely on our priority list, but it's not something that's currently scoped.

I can tell you it starts on the state.

Okay. Because I do think when you look at the regions and, you know, they have four maintenance sheds and four maintenance shops, and if that's the case, just I think having that plan is going to be critical.

I hear a lot in my district where there is a satellite office and the need for the renovations and it's kind of slowly resting and coming apart.

And so tremendous work that the folks do out of that particular office.

I think it's going to be really important to think about what we need currently.

I know we're talking about these two locations, but throughout the entire city.

So I just want to make sure that we can.

Definitely.

That is a high priority.

We have several that fall into that that we would really love to get our employees into a better thing.

And so that's why we continue to, every time there's an opportunity for funds like the bond put forward,

bundles like this to try to update our existing facilities and look at where are there still gaps.

And I know that we are, it's bond related, so you can stop me if not.

But is there additional funding in the RISE bond that, or maybe this isn't a full question, additional funding contingency within RISE that would be able to supplement or be able to build out additional satellite facilities?

I don't have that answer right now.

We obviously continue to monitor our contingency across all of our bond programs.

And our first priority is to use that contingency to deliver on projects that were named in the ballot included in the ordinance.

And so we continue to focus there, but very happy to provide an update to you if that would be helpful.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then my last question was, I think it's already going to be provided, but if it can go to all council members, kind of what would be in the scope?

Like, I think you said it was, I don't know what it was, irrigation of park use, irrigating acres, and what that looks like for each of the different districts.

Yeah, we'll get you a breakdown of how Jill and team determine, you know, that trying to break everything up so that everybody gets the same level of service.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't have any other questions.

Thank you, Madam President.

Parity?

Thank you.

I'm back because I just am chewing on this, like, understanding that it was a different process because it was maybe more rushed and it was COVID and things were wonky and whatever is kind of what I'm hearing as subtext.

But going back to how this was done for Elevate, we had from the very jump a huge number of projects under consideration.

And they did have some kind of price tag attached to them.

And for the bundles, like the genuine bundles, that was different.

But those were things like paving where it's sort of like we'll do as much as we can and divide it up evenly between these locations.

It's really hard for me to imagine that anything that involves a new building would have been just had a number slapped on it and not had some grounds for it.

And so I heard you say two kind of different things.

The first thing was that it was a bundle.

We didn't know how it would be divided.

And then the second thing was it would have been priced out based on the cost of a headquarters

or whatever and a maintenance facility.

There has to be something that exists about this.

Like these projects aren't done yet.

I just want to see wherever that $15 million came from.

There has to be documentation about it, I would think.

And so if there could be a really concerted effort to find that and just see how was the

$15 million scoped out and explained, again, before it got randomly split in half equally

on a spreadsheet on the website or whatever, but at the time it was being submitted, like

at the very beginning, how did that number arise?

How did the $15 million number arise?

That's what, that would be very helpful.

I'm trying to get that for you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Contingency was the word that I was searching for last time I would find my words.

How much did it cost to build roads?

I just have the building plan in 21 but I don't have the number in that.

Knowing it was five years ago and half the size.

I don't believe I have that for a sale number but we can get that for you.

Okay.

And then when was downtown made its own district?

Thank you, Jill.

Let's see.

So after 2008, during the time we reordered from 1411

to down the four maintenance districts,

After 2008, they reordered and went back up to the downtown area.

So about then.

And in my understanding that it matches, because it's so small compared to the rest of the other districts,

it matches in terms of need or intensity?

Like what, well, respectfully, the irrigated acres are going to show less, but the density and population and use is going to be more than double.

Oh, all right.

I mean, the size of Civic Center alone, and then the amount of activity or, you know, events and things that go on there, it's going to be more than double.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Jill.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

I do not have the numbers for Rosedale, but I can speak to the Smith Road Havana shop,

and that is the headquarters for Northeast.

That was completed in 2024.

It's the state-of-the-art facility.

It was just under $6 million.

It's 4,800 square feet with five private offices, 15 workstation spaces, a break room, a training room.

We added on to the previous structures there to create this headquarters, extended the

fencing.

It's fully net zero.

It's geothermal.

And that was about $6 million.

Got it.

Thank you.

I guess one question that comes to mind.

The current maintenance facility at Kornavaka Park, why can't we continue using it?

We're just outgrowing it?

We have outgrown it, but we don't own it.

Parks does not own it, so we need to vacate.

Do we have a lease terminating or something?

The park is behind the police station by I-70 and I-25.

Yeah, so it's La Quinta.

La Quinta is where Park Avenue turns into 38th Avenue,

where the police headquarters training is.

It's behind there on the Platte River.

So it's not, it might be technically in Kornavaka.

I don't think it actually is even in the city of Kornavaka Park.

It's literally along the Platte River Trail behind the police maintenance facility.

That's at that whole CDOT area where I-25 and I-70 merge.

So it's not currently in the city of Kornavaka Park.

Correct. Not in the park, not in a park at all.

It is city owned, but it's a police building that we were borrowing space and that they weren't using.

But they have notified the department apparently years ago that they were going to need that space and that we were patient.

But I think we were supposed to be out already.

And so it's been a long need to find a replacement for that building as they're moving back into their space.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a couple questions.

I think, Jill, can you talk to me about the satellite facility at Berkeley at the Northwest?

Is it actually a facility or is it just open space near the dock park?

So, good question.

Thank you, Councilwoman, Council President.

With Scott Gilmore and I looking at staffing challenges, Camp Roland Day,

what became available, we didn't have a suitable place for the Northwest Berkeley team.

Under Scott's purview, we looked at places.

So Camp Roland Day was selected for staff to report to, but not the equipment.

And so Berkeley has just the maintenance yard there where we store only equipment next to the dog park.

There is no staff out of it.

Can you give my colleagues an overview of what's happening at Sloan's Lake?

Because I think the boathouse is closed.

I don't think they're in the gun club off of 17th and Sheridan, so we don't technically have.

And that area also is in Council District 3, Maintenance Council District 3.

So where are those people located currently right now?

So currently the Northwest District has Sloan's Lake boathouse, very small.

housing two operations supervisors,

and the actual field staff out of that building

to take care of Sloan's Lake itself and the outer parks.

Once the boathouse is built,

they'll relocate just that staff to the gun club building,

which will be refabricated,

and the manager will report to the downtown park operation office,

or Kornivaka.

And this is pretty common. Councilwoman Torres has an area where Ruby Hill staff shares a maintenance facility with the Barnum staff. So not uncommon. Rosedale, the new building, actually houses water conservation and other programs along with the district.

So somebody brought up a survey.

Joellen's agreed that we'll look at that.

So that should answer just at least the Berkeley Maintenance Yard and the Slons Lake question.

So someone from Parks and Rec, there is, during the public testimony and public comment,

there is a deal between River Mile and they were there's a I don't know if it's a development

agreement. River Mile is not built out. It's not it's it's supposed to have already broke ground

like a long time ago and I think we voted on that in 2019 or prior I think it was 2018 when we

I wasn't even on council yet.

It was under my predecessor.

If that comes online, if this facility is built at Karnabaka Park right there,

will you still pull in that fund and get those funding?

And does it have to go to this maintenance facility?

Or can it be moved to another maintenance facility that is more in need?

Unfortunately, because they haven't broke ground,

the way that was negotiated is none of that money comes to us until they do.

so we don't right now know when or if that will be,

but we do have the facility at Centennial Gardens

where we are that will need to be relocated,

and so we will be re-talking to them about our needs

and about what's being developed when.

The timeline for that has completely changed

from what it was when that was negotiated,

and so we'll have to figure out what the timing is,

what can stay there, what can't,

and find a solution for that as well.

Okay, and then remind us for the Cuernavaca

Park, who will be housed out of there again?

Our director of operations, our district managers.

I'll let you answer that.

So what you'll see out of the Kornabaka facility will be the Northwest manager and a team of

operations supervisor and field staff that has parts centrally located to there.

You'll have the downtown park operations manager.

You'll have all of their field staff out of there.

You'll have me, finally, and then that'll provide a central oversight area for myself.

And potentially rangers.

So that will provide a space for them.

It'll network better so that we're all working together in that whole corridor.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions by the members of council, the public hearing is closed.

We have a motion on the floor.

Council Member Gilmore, what would you like to do with Council Bill 1704?

I would move that Council Bill 25-1704 be postponed to a date certain, Monday, March 16, 2026.

It's been moved.

It's been moved and it has not been seconded.

It's been seconded.

by members of council on the motion to postpone 725-1704 to a date certain. Councilmember

Gilmore. Thank you, Council President. We have been talking about this bill for about

an hour and a half, and it's very clear that there's confusion as to what a regional maintenance

shop is and what a satellite maintenance shop is. Even the parks director can't explain who is going

to be housed in these different facilities and we don't have anything in writing. It's all up here

at the podium and so very respectfully I am asking my colleagues to please vote on this

postponement so that we can get clarity around this. It's so important for trust of our constituents.

People don't trust the government right now. And us having this conversation right now,

I don't know why anybody would, because we don't even know who's going to be housed in shops. We

We don't know what the criteria is for regional or satellite.

It's all happenstance.

It's very subjective and not objective.

And the facts clearly show on line 88 of the spreadsheet that Carolina Flores sent to this entire council on September 16, 2024,

of our micro priorities, it shows that it was tracking

a $7.9 million investment for both District 1 and District 11.

What you have been told tonight is so very counter

to how we have been communicated with throughout the Johnston administration

because their mantra is, if we put it up on the website,

That's our bond with the public. That's what's going to happen.

When have you ever heard in city and county of Denver governance that you throw up an artificially inflated number if that is what happened and then have to dumb it down by 5.4 million to explain to the voters why money is being taken out of the most diverse neighborhoods in the city?

In District 11, we have Montbello, we have Parkfield, we have Avion, we have Green Valley Ranch, and we have the High Point neighborhoods.

We have 600 acres of open space at the First Cricut Den open space.

We have eight miles of the Highline Canal Trail systems.

If this goes forward, this then begs into question every single one of the vibrant Denver bond items that were voted on.

Because in five years, another director of parks can be standing up there saying, well, oh, no, no, that wasn't what was discussed.

It wasn't discussed like that. We're going to move money from one district in the city to another district in the city.

And anybody who knows me, I was the council president when this was referred to the ballot.

There is no way that I would have ever agreed to an 84-16% split.

That is illogical.

And so I respectfully ask that council supports this delay of this bill so that there can be more outreach, there can be more transparency, we can really understand what the long-term planning of Denver Parks and Rec is going to be.

It's not a vote down. It's not a forever. It's to a date certain, March 16th, so that we can have our community meeting in the Green Valley Ranch community and we can talk to constituents.

They should be given the respect that they don't read about this in the newspaper after a city council meeting, but that they are greeted and given the right public service and connection to actually meet with people in person to talk with them about it.

And so again, I respectfully ask for the delay

so that there can be more comprehensive outreach

and engagement and many of you tonight

asked for follow up documents.

And so then that would also allow

for a little bit more in depth understanding

of what parks is doing around their strategic planning

and facilities.

Thank you.

Council Member Parity.

Yeah, I wanted to make sure to second Councilmember Gilmore's motion so that she could say what she needed to say about this and represent her district in doing so because I also represent folks up there.

I am concerned about this just because I find it pretty impossible to tell what the intention was in 2021, and that's obviously not good practice.

I will keep following up to try to get that clarified.

And I think if it becomes clear that people were promised something beyond this satellite

and something more co-equal to what other areas of the city have

and that we can see that that was the intention,

then I would support allocating some of the rise interest to make that happen.

So I will follow up on this. I care about it.

it doesn't get me to the point of being a no on this building plan, but I am definitely,

it really gives me pause, I guess, that we're finishing out the 2021 bond without

being able to get answers to those kinds of questions about what the intention was that

was put in front of communities and the voters at that time. And it's really hard again when we

weren't here, right? If I had been an At-Large member at that time, I hopefully would have had

a sense of these things, but I wasn't. And so, um, so we're really looking to the agencies for

answers and I hope parks can find something from that time, um, to show us what the public was

told, what was represented to them, um, and what people understood themselves to be voting on. So,

um, thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Sawyer.

Thank you, Madam President. Um, really appreciate the conversation and I really feel for Councilwoman

Gilmore in this situation. I will say District 5 has had some of the same challenges with the

Rise Denver bonds and the way they were written and the way that they were packaged into a number

of different bundles, which were very, very general. And so I certainly, you know, understand

the frustration and the confusion. I also think that unfortunately, because it was an emergency,

because city council had almost no engagement whatsoever with the Rise Denver bonds at the time.

The way that this is written, this is allowed to happen.

And that is problematic.

And I will say that is why I was so forceful in my advocacy about the vibrant Denver bonds

and making sure that they were written differently

and making sure that the companion ordinance was very clear

and in making sure that the projects were not bundled in this way

and were not bundled into citywide packages

because this kind of thing has happened with both Rise and Elevate

a couple of different times.

And the challenge is that I think Councilwoman Gilmore is right

and has every right to be advocating for her district in this way,

but it's not illegal, not the way it was written,

not the way it was sent to the voters,

and not the way it was voted on by the voters.

And so the question here for council is, you know,

are we going to make up new rules now

or are we going to ensure that this never happens again?

And I will say that with the vibrant Denver bonds,

we made sure that this would not happen again.

So I really appreciate Councilwoman Gilmore.

I feel for her in the position that she is in in this moment,

but I will still be a no.

on delaying this. Thanks. Thank you, Madam President. Basically, I would say the exact

same thing that Council Member Sawyer said, that 5-2 was bit by the 2021 bond

to a trail segment there also went to a DOTI on-call contract. So as we just learned,

The satellite facility will be a DOTI on-call contract, which really not only gives a different funding amount from what you expected your constituents to get, but also gives you minimal control over the process as well.

So I was also going to say the Vibrant Differt Bond is not perfect either, but I wanted to solve for that same issue that is biting me and the 2021 bond.

And I'm so sorry that your constituents are feeling the pain.

So thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis?

Thank you so much.

I do think, I don't think it helps that the parks doesn't have a master plan.

So I think it's causing this distrust in community.

But based on the answers that I received, it sounds like, and I'm grateful that I didn't have to experience the mess of the previous bond.

Because this one is a lot more explicit and I have a deep appreciation for that.

With that, I will still be moving forward on this and cannot support the postponement.

But I do appreciate the conversation with that.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, we'll call on the postponement of Council Bill 251704.

Council Members, Sawyer?

No.

Alvarez?

No.

Flynn?

Nay.

Gilborn?

Nay.

Hines?

No.

Cashman?

No.

Lewis?

Nay.

Parity?

No.

Romero Campbell?

No.

No. Torres? Nay. Watson? Nay. Madam President Sandoval? Nay. Madam Secretary, close the

voting and announce the results. 1 aye, 11 nays. 11 nays, Council Bill 1704 has not been

postponed. Now we have comments from members of council on the 1704. Not the postponement, but the bill.

I'll start. So when I got into office, I was looking for a office to rent outside the city

and county building and I went to the Platte River Rowing Company, if some of you have been

in my office and their parking lot was a city parking lot that was a city parcel and that got

sold and so suddenly the office that I was going to rent had no parking associated with it and my

landlord went to Scott Gilmore and asked if they could have a parking lot where this facility that

we're talking about right now is. And so I've talked about this land for since 2019 when

I first was a tenant in there. We had an on-site meeting. They actually told my landlord that

they could build a on-site parking lot on city land, but that it couldn't stay there

because we needed a park maintenance facility in that area. And that was not in 2021, that

was in 2019. So these conversations predate even me being in council office. So I don't know about

how the money got allocated. I knew that this was always going to be a really big shop because my

council district, I don't think about these as council districts. I've never had a maintenance

facility shop in the northwest park facility which i share with councilwoman torres and i

share with you councilmember watson a little bit i don't have downtown i have a sliver i literally

go to the consolidated rail line councilmember times you represent most of downtown i do not

and this is actually in the downtown park facility it will maintenance some of my parks it would but

I don't think about it as Council District 1 is not getting as much.

I've never thought about it as Council District 1.

In the RISE bond, I was able to get $7 million for a maintenance facility, and it was a line item.

It couldn't be changed.

And that was me negotiating with Parks because I wanted $7 million for the boathouse.

And so we are getting some money for a satellite facility over at the gun club.

But I've always thought about our facilities as what's best for the workers of Denver.

Just like you all have staff who you need to have an iPad with and you need to have computers with.

I've always thought about what's best for the workers of Denver.

And I've always leaned on the parks to tell me what they need.

Not me telling them what I need.

Unless it's like I need a port-a-pot for a Cesar Chavez parade.

I'm always going to advocate for the city workers

as I'm always going to advocate for your council aides.

So I want to look into more,

and I agree with Council Member Sawyer and Council Member Hines.

I got burned on some of the bonds too.

Elevate, I didn't get anything.

I got one park in Inspiration Point,

and literally that's it.

Literally.

I got sidewalks in Council District 1.

nothing else on Elevate. And at that time, it was the biggest bond in the history of Denver,

besides the one we just passed. And I got $1 million park at Inspiration Point. So I do

understand that the inequities of what happens in these bonds. And that's why I did my best to

facilitate that differently. We passed, we sent the, whatever the bond is vibrant, thank you,

to the voters. So I hope that we can pass this tonight and look forward to continuing to work

on all of the rise, want, elevate, and now vibrant. It's a lot. It's a lot to oversee in our city.

And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 251704. Council members. Sawyer.

Aye.

Albitrez?

Aye.

Flynn?

Aye.

Gilmore?

No.

Hines?

Aye.

Cashman?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Parity?

Aye.

Romero Campbell?

Aye.

Torres?

Aye.

Watson?

Aye.

Madam President Sandoval?

Aye.

Madam Secretary, close the vote and announce the results.

1 nay, 11 ayes.

11 ayes, Council Bill 25-1704 passed.

Council Member Alvarez, will you please put Council Bill 25-1991, changing the zoning classification for 8250 East 40th Avenue in Central Park on the floor for final passage.

I move that Council Bill 25-1991 be a final consideration and do pass.

It's been moved and seconded.

The required public hearing for Council Bill 25, 1991 is open.

May we please have the staff report.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of City Council.

My name is Fran Peña Fiel and I'm a principal city planner with Community Planning and Development.

And today I'm here to present you an overview of the rezoning proposal for 80 to 50 East 40th Avenue.

I would like to start by giving you a little bit of background on this rezoning because it's a little different.

So the history here is that while the current zoning of this subject property is currently

OSA, the subject property at 8250 East 40th Avenue used to be I-2, which is a former Chapter

59 zoning district for heavy industrial zoning.

When the city went through a citywide rezoning in 2010 to move properties from former Chapter

59 into the Denver zoning code. The subject site was incorrectly identified as city-owned

in the city records and was mistakenly included in the OSA zoning for the Sand Creek

bulk fuel farm directly east of the subject site. So you can see there to the northeast and east,

that's OSA. The subject site is currently vacant and used as surface parking and storage by the

property owner who also owns the parcel located to the south of the subject site. So directly

south of that red line, that property is also owned by the same property owner. At the end

of last year, the property owner contacted CPD to start working on a concept plan to

develop his property, and that is when we were made aware of the error on the map. CPD

is requesting to re-stone the property from OSA to IB to amend the error that was made

in 2010. So now let's take a quick look at the subject site location and what does the

surrounding context look like. The subject site is located in Council District 8, which

is Councilmember Lewis's district, and it is in the Central Park neighborhood. As mentioned

before, the property was incorrectly zoned OSA, which is the district designation for

open space, public parks, a district that is intended

to protect and preserve public parks owned,

operated or leased by the city and managed

by the city department of parks and recreation

for park purposes and of course the subject site

is not owned, leased or managed by the city.

I wanted to show you quickly this map.

So this is like our former chapter 59 zoning.

So you can see here that it was sewn correctly I2,

which is the heavy industrial,

and then when we moved to chapter 59,

it's when the error occurred.

On this slide, I would like quickly to show you

a couple of images so you can see that it's very industrial.

So the top right image is the site itself

that it's been used for parking.

The bottom image shows the industrial area to the west.

Now let's look at the process.

This rezoning proposal was referred directly to the Community Planning and Housing Committee

without review or recommendation from the Denver Planning Board

as allowed under Denver Zoning Code Section 12.4.10.4.d.2.b.

Where an amendment is necessary only to correct an error in the official map,

the manager might submit the application, including agency comment and recommendation,

directly to the Council Committee for its consideration.

Informational notice of the receipt of the application was sent out on November 17,

2025 to all affected members of City Council, registered neighborhood organizations, and

property owners and tenants within 200 feet of the subject property.

The proposal was on the consent agenda for the Community Planning and Housing Committee

on December 9, and we're here today for the official City Council hearing.

Let's move to the review criteria.

For a rezoning to be approved by City Council, it must be found that the requested map amendment

is consistent with three review criteria found on the Denver Zoning Code.

Our role as staff planners is to evaluate the requested district, in this case the IB,

against these three review criteria.

The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans.

There is four plans applicable to this rezoning.

We have Comprehensive Plan 2040.

We have Blue Print Denver.

We have Central Park Boulevard Station Area Plan from 2012, and we have the Central Park

Development Plan from 1995.

As stated in the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals of ComPlan

2040.

This map amendment will enable industrial infield development at a location where services and

infrastructures are already in place.

Now let's take a look at Blueprint Denver.

The subject property is shown on the context map as within the urban center neighborhood

context, which is described as.

This context contains high-intensity residential and significant employment areas.

Development typically contains a high mix of uses with good street activation and connectivity.

Residents living in this context are well served by high-capacity transit and have access

to ample amenities and entertainment options.

While the proposed district does not allow for residential uses, it will allow for the

expansion of existing employment area that already supports the neighborhood,

but it's appropriate and consistent with the urban center context plan direction.

Because the property was mistakenly mapped as part of the Sand Creek

bulk fuel farm during the 2010 citywide rezoning,

Blueprint Denver identifies the subject property as part of parks and open space

future places within the urban center neighborhood context.

Given the known error in the map and consistent with the surrounding context,

we can confidently say that the correct future place guidance should be regional center place.

Blueprint Denver describes the aspirational characteristics of regional center in the urban center context

as office, retail, eating and drinking establishment, commercial services, and multi-unit residential use.

The proposed IB district allows for the expansion of an existing employment area that already supports the neighborhood,

What is appropriate and consistent with the regional center's future place designation,

it is also consistent with the IB zoning to the immediate west of the site.

The subject property is, again, mapped incorrectly and should be shown as part of the regional

centers instead of as part of all other areas of the city.

Regional centers are anticipated to see around 30% of new housing growth and 50% of new employment

growth by 2040.

The proposed map amendment will focus employment growth to regional centers where it has been determined to be the most appropriate.

Now when we look at the Central Park Boulevard Station Area Plan from 2012.

The plan was adopted in 2012 and identifies the subject site in the land use map as TOD employment,

which is described as areas near transit stations should take advantage of the multimodal nature of the location

regardless of the predominant existing of future use or future uses.

The TOD employment is a subcategory of the transit-oriented development land use concept found on Blueprint Denver.

TOD employment recognizes the potential for a large amount of employment, including industrial uses near a transit station.

These areas might have existing industrial uses requiring access to major arterials or interstate and are near heavy rail facilities.

Although not common in the Denver area, other areas with commuter rail services have stations in industrial areas with significant employee ridership.

Portions of the Central Park industrial area could serve as an example of this land use concept in the future.

The proposed rezoning is consistent with the small area plan because it will allow for the expansion of industrial uses near a transit station, major arterials, heavy rail facilities, and the interstate.

And lastly, we will quickly take a look at the Central Park Development Plan.

This plan was adopted in 1995 and predated the overall development of Central Park neighborhood

and included land use recommendations that were inevitably not billed as envisioned.

However, most of the key development recommendations, including identifying this area as transit

oriented district center, have been developed to date.

More specifically, this property is in what was envisioned as District 2, the Central Park

neighborhood, which contemplated serving primarily employment and higher density residential

needs.

It contemplated also serving as an intermodal facility linking rail, bus, and pedestrian

networks.

The proposed map amendment would facilitate expanding industrial development, which would

advance the planned vision for this area.

Moving on to criteria two, the proposed official map amendment furthers the public interest

through implementation of city adopted land use plan and by correctly mapping the zone

district originally intended in the citywide rezoning of 2010 from former chapter 59 to

the Denver zoning code.

And lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the industrial neighborhood context,

purpose, and intent.

With that, staff does recommend that City Council approve the proposed resounding based on finding that all the review criteria has been met.

This evening.

Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 25, 1991.

Council Member Torres.

Yes.

Left.

In with the bid.

That was an action.

I'll get back in a little while.

So super curious, the property map lists it as connected to the city of Denver space.

So is that why it was so easily zoned incorrectly?

So what does the property owner have to do to reclaim that property?

So he already, so he has a deed.

So we saw that the property is his, like I verified that.

And we're working with the assessor's office, so they're drawing the line so that now it's going to be shown correctly.

It's supposed to be done by the end of the month.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis?

Thank you. I think I just found the answer to my question, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

The first one is, how was this mistake made?

I wish I knew.

I did a lot of research to see if we had had a situation like this before in the past.

I could find one example that was noted like right away after the 2010 rezoning.

So it was like a mapping error.

Like it must have, I could not speak for how it happened.

And the property owner never developed it.

So never looked at it.

So when he came and tried to develop it, that's when he realized.

So he came over and he's like, I'm ready to move on with the concept.

And we're like, oh no, this property is not yours.

It's the city.

and he, exactly, and that's how we noticed.

That was my next question and you answered it.

And then the last question I have is,

in the application it states that the original was I2,

but it sounds like that was in the old chapter

and I2 now replaces I2?

Yep, it's all right.

Thank you.

Council Member Clay?

Thank you, Madam President.

But when we rezoned this thinking it was ours, that mistake was at CPD, not at the assessor's office.

So the landowner has been paying taxes and all on it, I presume, up until this point.

Correct?

If you know.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that question?

This has been misidentified as city property back in 2010 by CPD.

has the landowner, if you know, been paying taxes on it?

In other words, the assessor's office didn't make any mistakes, did he?

I'm not sure.

The property owner should be online.

So if you want to ask him that question, because that's a great question.

We have tax assessment done every year, and we use that same property.

We found out that this property was not allocated to us later.

So we've been paying taxes on the whole thing throughout the time.

Excellent. I recall this parcel from when we were doing the a line at our TV. There was some engagement there. Okay.

So we're bringing it into the 2010 code now. Thank you. We're not taking it back to former chapter 59.

No, we would not know. I don't think we can do that. We're not allowed to do that.

allowed to do that. We could do that but it would be wrong. There would be no

plan to guide us to do it. Seeing no other colleagues in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of

Council on Council Bill 25 1991.

Comments?

Seeing none, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 25 1991.

Council Members Sawyer?

Aye.

Albitrez?

Aye.

Flynn?

Aye.

Gilmore?

Hines?

Aye.

Cashman?

Aye.

Lewis?

Aye.

Parity? Aye.

Romero-Campbell? Aye.

Torres? Aye.

Watson? Aye.

Madam President Sandoval? Aye.

Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.

11 ayes.

11 ayes. Council Bill 25, 1991 has passed.

There being no further forgiveness before this body, this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.