Welcome back to this biweekly meeting of the South Platte River Committee of Denver City Council.

Join us for the discussion as the South Platte River Committee starts now.

Welcome everyone to the South Platte Committee.

November 12th.

I'm Councilwoman Torres.

I represent West Denver District 3.

And before we uh get into our action items, let's uh do council member introductions and I'll see if we have anyone online.

Yes.

If you're online, go ahead and introduce yourselves.

Councilmember Sarah Parity, one of your city council members at large.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

I'll start to my right.

Distinguished gentleman to your right.

No, no.

But not quite so distinguished, I think.

Good afternoon, uh Councilman Flora Alvidres with Lucky District 7.

Uh Kevin Flynn, South West Denver's District 2.

Good afternoon.

Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Uh, good afternoon, Councilmember Darrell Watson, fine, District 9.

Thank you so much.

You're all distinguished and perfect and wonderful.

Thank you.

That's the first.

We don't know if I should skip.

And the highest.

I uh also I'll add in.

You're welcome.

Let's turn it over to our presenters.

Um, if you'll do introductions, we'll start with our CPD presenter, uh, Tony, and uh take it away.

Yeah, thanks for having us.

My name is Tony Lechuga.

I'm a senior planner with community planning and development.

Rob Cohen, I'm the controlling owner of Denver Summit FC.

Thora Walter, uh, Capital Planning and Programming in the Department of Finance.

Jeff Dolan in the mayor's office.

Thank you so much.

Yes, Madam President, you want to introduce.

Yeah, Amanda Sound of the President of Denver City Council.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh, and thank you for being here.

Obviously, we're discussing the property of the proposed soccer stadium.

Um, that is the only item, but there are five or so different bills associated.

Um, so Tony, we'll turn it over to you.

Yeah, and we're actually gonna start with Jeff.

Oh, great.

Uh, I'll open real quickly because Tony has a lot of content to cover.

Uh so uh I guess first of all, thank you for making time for us again, and and thank you really for the time you spent the last several months on this.

There have been, I don't even know how many briefings, hundreds and thousands or something, but a lot of briefings with you all.

It's been it's been a big big use of your time, and we've been very grateful for the amount of time you've invested to it.

So today, maybe Tony just flip to the next.

This is kind of our roadmap for today.

Obviously, we'll we'll cover the legislative actions and what's coming.

Tony's gonna cover a lot of information on the rezoning side, which is obviously critically important to get into our site agreements and the appropriation bills, and then Rob's gonna provide uh an update on all the community engagement that his team has been doing, which has been extensive as well.

So uh next slide.

We'll quickly show the bills that we're gonna be considering here and the items up for consideration and sort of the timeline here uh of where we're at.

So obviously many, many briefings, and here we are in committee today.

Uh, first reading, November 17th with hopefully the final vote on December 15th.

So I guess I would just, you know, I would in my closing of my opening, I would just say I'm reminded of the African proverb.

Uh you want to go fast, go alone if you want to go far, go together because there has been an enormous amount of I'd say collaboration teamwork on this.

Uh obviously CPD has been doing some very heavy lifting the last several months.

Dotti Parks, uh City Council, uh the Metro District, Rob's organization.

Uh it's just been a very, very collaborative effort, I would say.

Uh, and I think last time we were before you in April and May, uh, formally in front of the body.

Uh, you know, I think everybody thought this timeline was very aggressive.

It was.

We had a lot to do since April and May, and and here we are, and I think we've got a lot of really great updates to share and excited to jump into it.

So uh thank you for your time today, and I'll turn it over to Tony.

All right, so as was just noted, we have five action items today.

The biggest chunk of time is this rezoning presentation.

I'm gonna try to move uh quickly um while still presenting thorough content so that everybody in the room, council, and the public in general understand what we're doing here.

Um so we do refer to it by its address, 709 South Delaware Street, but this is generally the property uh associated with uh the proposed soccer stadium, which we're looking to rezone.

Um so the request itself is to take this portion of the property um and rezone it from CMX 16.

That stands for Urban center, mixed use, buildings up to 16 stories.

That's its existing zoning today.

And we're looking to rezone it into what is called PUD G39.

That stands for planned unit development.

A planned unit development means that we are taking our zoning and we're writing customized rules for this specific site.

So we'll tweak the existing zoning in unique ways to allow particular development.

And the 39 is just that it's the 39th PUD we've written.

That's all you need to know about that.

So it's generally about this six acres of land that's vacant.

It's associated with the former Gates rubber company, which had most of this land in the Broadway station area from the early 1900s until they closed their doors in 1991.

And since then, this land has gone through extensive remediation, planning, and many years of sitting vacant.

So this represents an exciting opportunity to do something with parts of this land.

We're gonna briefly talk about location and context.

So this is in District 7, represented by Councilmember Elvidrez.

It's located in the Baker neighborhood, but it's surrounded by many other neighborhoods in the vicinity, whether those are Valverde, Athmar Park, Ruby Hill, Overland, or Wash Park itself.

All of those neighborhoods are kind of at the confluence of this particular property.

Platte Park.

Sorry, I forgot to mention one.

So this shows the existing zoning.

You can see most of the Broadway station area has that same CMX zoning, whether it's CMX-12 to the east of the train tracks, or it's CMX 16, like this property to the west of the train tracks.

And that zoning allows for a diversity of uses.

It's mixed use for a reason.

You can see to the north, there's similar mixed-use zoning, and then immediately to the west, we have sort of this open space zoning, and that's associated with two parks, Vanderbilt Park across the South Platte River, and a future Vanderbilt Park East, just immediately south of the site.

And then you can see the reason we're before this committee today, the South Platte River itself is almost immediately adjacent this site with Santa Fe Drive and Platte River Drive sort of framing the river itself.

It's important to note for the site that there are some urban design standards and guidelines.

When writing the PUD, we considered what those would look like in conjunction with the controlling factors of the zoning code.

But these design standards and guidelines will help us ensure that we get good design out of whatever's built on this site, and that it aligns with some of the guiding principles and intent statements that we had imagined when we first wrote these guiding principles for the site years ago.

There's a viewplane that covers the site, it's the Wash Park viewplane.

It does limit heights to this site somewhere between 150 and 170 feet.

Notably, the PUD reinforces that by requiring the buildings under 150 feet and the current designs for the stadium comply with that.

So no issues there.

In terms of existing context, I think a lot of us are familiar with the site location through driving by it, living near it, walking past it over many years.

But you can see a lot of what's planned in the small area plans and Blueprint Denver for this site mirrors what we see existing on Broadway now, which is a big diversity of uses, whether they're offices, mixed use, residential, and so the plans support continuing that type of use.

Not of any concern to the things we're voting on today, but there is an existing housing and development agreements for the site that have been in place for quite some time.

So there is an agreement between the city and county of Denver and Broadway Station partners that will continue to apply to this site, even with a rezoning, and those control things like the amount of open space, transportation requirements, environmental concerns, and things around wages.

It's also subject to a housing agreement between the city of Denver and Broadway Station partners.

I will note that the agreement is for the larger site.

There was never planned to be any housing on this site through this agreement or through any of the planning process.

So let's get into the proposed zoning, which is really why we're here today, to talk about the transformation from CMX 16 to PUD G39.

So the purpose of this PUD is to facilitate some sort of dense mixed-use transit-oriented development, and to allow uses and building forms that allow for either a potential sports stadium that exists within a mixed-use district or just a mixed-use district itself.

And so I want to note that the PUD is based on a PUD is always written based on an existing Denver zoning code district, and then we tweak things from that district.

So the base district in this case is campus entertainment.

And the reason it's based on that is that campus entertainment allows for a potential stadium, such as a soccer stadium.

So to that end, the PUD would allow for one of two things.

Either a sports and entertainment arena with customized zoning, and we'll talk a little bit about what those customizations are, or if a sports or entertainment arena or stadium is not built here, it will be built under the CMX 16 standards.

So it really is tailored for saying we can build this sports stadium with customization, or you follow the underlying rules as they exist today.

And the things that we actually customized are this.

We customize the height to 150 feet.

Campus entertainment can sometimes allow for heights taller than that.

It's not needed for this stadium, and it wouldn't be allowed because of the viewplane anyway.

We removed upper story and street level setbacks.

Notably in 2010, when we created the Denver zoning code, we didn't imagine the sort of stadiums that exist today.

Historically, stadiums existed in a sea of parking, and so they were really far set back from the street.

You could have these upper story setbacks so that if you're standing on the sidewalk, you could see, you could draw a line and the stadium would be set back really far.

But nowadays, urban stadiums are designed in a way where we do anticipate them being part of mixed-use entertainment districts where people might stay in hotels, they might eat at restaurants, they might live there, and they would work there.

And so by removing those upper story setbacks, we do actually allow the stadium to be built, sort of at a hard uh vertical line from the lot line.

In exchange for some of those things, what we've added are some transparency and street level active use requirements to say you cannot just build a blank wall here.

We do want to see that people can be able to see into the stadium.

We want some of those active uses wrapping the edges.

So quite notably, the street level active use requirements are required on that eastern portion of the property where they should be fronting a street, where they're facing the stadium, where they're gonna face existing residential, and proposed future office buildings.

And so really activating that eastern frontage by having some of these street level active uses.

And then a couple of other things that were customized to the fencing requirements.

So we allowed for some taller fencing around the site with some unique design requirements to say that it can be taller, but a high percentage of it has to actually be transparent so people can still see into the site.

But the height requirement is one that is based on requirements of the National Women's Soccer League.

And so it was important to make sure that we have those safety aspects while also saying it's not just a 12-foot brick wall surrounding the site.

And then the final thing that's customized are the sign allowances.

So again, our sign requirements as they were written in 2010 don't really reflect what we see in modern stadiums that function sort of as the hub of entertainment districts.

And so what we allowed for are higher number of signs, and we allowed for some of those signs to have things like larger electronic multimedia displays.

Those are the types of things that you might see within downtown's theater district.

That could include animation, flashing, advertising, but then very importantly, in the PUD, we wrote in regulations that will help us to minimize adverse impacts.

For example, they cannot build a large multimedia display on the northern side of the stadium where it fronts I-25, thus turning the stadium into a billboard.

Okay, those have to be facing into the district, and they will be regulated at the time of a comprehensive sign plan.

Okay, so a comprehensive sign plan is an administrative tool we currently have for any site throughout the city where someone can come in and say that they want some sort of unique allowances.

They present a plan to CPD, we review those at the staff level and determine if we think they're appropriate in terms of the size and content of those signs, and then they're actually approved by Denver's planning board.

And they have to comply with the comprehensive sign plan, and if they ever want to amend that, they go through the process again.

And so it's anticipated that this site will comply with both the standards of the PUD in terms of signs, but then they also have additional regulations that will be reviewed at the time that they submit their comprehensive sign plan.

And in a nutshell, that's the zoning that they're asking for.

So in terms of process, mandatory notice of this complete application went out back in July of this year.

It went to planning board in mid-October.

That brings us to today.

And as was noted before, we anticipate this going before public hearing in mid-December.

In terms of public comments, we have received no official letters from applicable ROs.

However, we did receive a letter from the community benefits agreement organization that is negotiating with the team ownership.

And that letter includes representatives from many of the ROs surrounding the site, and it should have been part of your package of materials.

We have received to date only one letter of opposition.

That letter noted that they didn't think this was a useful use of this site and that this team could play at an existing facility.

And then we've received 131 letters of support from neighbors and other stakeholders.

Those include residents of the district, they include business owners within Broadway and adjacent areas, and key themes that they highlighted included connectivity that this will bring between various neighborhoods that have been disconnected, activation of long vacant land, and the economic impact this can have within the broader region.

As I mentioned, this went to Planning Board on October 15th.

They voted unanimously to recommend approval.

They had no general substantive questions or concerns around this, just some general questions about the PUD's functionality.

So let's turn to the criteria.

And for those in the room who've never sat through one of these or unfamiliar with the rezoning process, it's worth noting that in order to approve a rezoning, both city staff, the planning board, and city council are asked to consider three review criteria to determine the appropriateness of that zoning.

And they're supposed to base, we're meant to base our answer off of the review criteria.

The first of which is the consistency with the city's adopted plans.

And for this site, we actually have three plans.

The first two are citywide plans, comprehensive plan 2040, and Blueprint Denver.

We're not gonna linger on comprehensive plan 2040 here.

There's a lot of information in the staff report about Comp Plan 2040 and all that it considers, but I will summarize it by saying we believe that this proposed rezoning would meet many of the goals in Comp Plan 2040 related to improving quality of life, cultural amenities, creating people oriented places that have good design outcomes, strengthening multimodal connections, broadening job access, and supporting various environmental goals by encouraging mixed-use communities near transit.

But now we will turn to Blueprint Denver a little bit.

And it's worth noting that Blueprint Denver is our citywide land use plan.

So it does provide some recommendations on how land should be used.

However, it's also mapped at a citywide scale.

And so we kind of take that with a little bit of a grain of salt because the boundaries are drawn with that citywide view in mind.

But Blueprint Denver offers us a few things.

The first is future neighborhood contexts, and it does call for this area to be similar to that everything north and south of it to be urban center, which is what it has today with that CMX zoning.

It has urban center zoning.

I mean, it's worth noting that urban centers are called for being dense, vibrant, supporting residents and visitors, having high-intensity residential and employment, and a mix of uses, good street activation and connectivity.

So in designing the PUD, it was important for us to say are we actually reflecting these types of goals in the place type?

And we do believe that the PUD, while being based on campus ENT will produce this sort of dense, vibrant area, and through its transparency and street level active use requirements will create good activation and connectivity to the surrounding areas.

Blueprint Denver also points us towards future places.

And these help us determine what types of buildings we might see there, whether they're residential, whether they're commercial, whether they're industrial.

And for this site, we actually see that it's called a regional center.

And within the urban center context, regional centers are listed as having a high mix of uses, large scale buildings, high degrees of urbanism, and heights that are generally some of the tallest in the district.

And so in writing the PUD again, we believe that many of the standards written to the PUD by tweaking the campus ENT will allow for a diversity of uses with high degrees of urbanism built into this site.

And so therefore we do think it is consistent with this language.

Because of the site's size, we conducted an equity analysis early in the process and tried to frame many of the conversations with the applicant and the proposed developer around this equity lens.

Now, Blueprint Denver calls for us to consider many things when advancing our city's planned goals.

They include improving access to opportunity.

This includes many things like improving access to the types of cultural amenities people have, access to open space, access to grocery stores.

One site cannot achieve all of those things in and of itself, but it is important for us to consider would this increase the overall access to opportunity that a site has.

The second is reducing vulnerability to displacement.

While there are no active residents on this site that would be displaced by future development, there are many neighborhoods surrounding this area that we want to make sure no future development is creating adverse economic impacts on those people and that they can continue to remain in place and reap benefits from this economic development.

And then the final is expanding housing and jobs diversity.

And again, while this would not expand housing onto the site, and our plans have never called for housing on this site, it would increase jobs diversity.

Notably, stadiums have a high diversity of job types, whether you are a soccer player or a soccer coach, or you are a janitor on site, or you work in any of the concessions facilities, or the type of temporary jobs that become associated with stadiums when they have things like concerts or other cultural events.

So we do believe that it would increase job diversity.

So what I'll summarize in there is that we believe that this would actually improve access to open space by creating some new connectivity by enhancing the proposed future park there, would help increase access to transit and diverse jobs, which can have big impacts on health care and child obesity, which are other metrics that we look at in our equity analysis.

So staff was conscious of all of these and the scores of the surrounding neighborhoods when considering the equity values associated with this type of zoning change.

And I just want to highlight a few of our Blueprint Denver goals.

Not going to read every word on this slide, but they're here for posterity's sake.

So in terms of some of our economic goals, we do believe that this rezoning would help us to capture job growth and improve access to jobs and build on the national and regional entertainment options that the plan calls for.

In terms of our mobility goals, we believe that this would help create mode shift.

For those in the room unfamiliar with that word, what it means is that Denver has set a goal of shifting people from driving, especially single occupancy vehicles, to try to encourage as many people who can and will use other modes of transit, whether it's the train, whether it's biking, whether it's walking.

Anytime we get one person to make that shift, it makes life easier for everybody, including those who need to drive.

And so we believe that this would help create better mode shift and would achieve many of our transportation demand management goals, getting people out of cars and using different modes of transit.

In terms of quality of life, we do have this one goal to work with public and private partners to improve access to a diversity of things that provide needs for all of Denver residents.

And we believe that the PUD would help achieve that through both the stadium itself, but also some of those street level active use requirements.

And then it's important for us to talk about climate.

We do believe that this would address some of our climate goals by promoting infill development where we already have services built into place in a dense neighborhood where people can walk, use transit to achieve it.

It would help us encourage a mixed-use community on this site where we've seen long vacant land.

It would focus that growth near transit, would lead to the redevelopment of brown fields.

Brown fields is a unique term within the planning world.

It refers to those sites that were formerly contaminated, have been cleaned up, and now can be revitalized in some unique way.

And this represents an opportunity there.

And continuing to expand use of transit by encouraging people to attend game day or concert events via transit.

All right, the final plan that we have for this area is the I-25 and Broadway Station Area Plan.

This was adopted back in 2016 and is focused more, provides more refined guidance for what we should see in any particular area.

Now I will note that this site in 2016 and the planning that led up to that was noted as a TOD office.

TOD stands for transit-oriented development.

That's any type of development that has land uses correlated to a mass transit facility.

So would people who are going there be using mass transit to get there?

It did initially call for a high density of office uses, but I want to note that, of course, in 2015, when we were negotiating the plan, in 2016 when it was adopted, I'm not sure anybody anticipated world events that have led to not as many office uses as we see today.

And so there hasn't been the high demand for office uses here, which has led to it being vacant for a long time.

So it's worth noting two quotes from the plan.

The first is that this land use framework is conceptual.

It's not meant to allocate specific land uses or intensities.

And the second is that it should allow for latitude to pursue unforeseen opportunities that would arise.

And so we believe the PUD, while not emphasizing the office part of the transit oriented development, would correlate to uses of a mass transit system, and it does represent an unforeseen opportunity to help enhance this mixed-use district.

And the plan, in addition to its land use map, contains many narrative goals that we think this would help achieve.

And so, in terms of economic resilience, it's worth noting that we think that this would, through its programming and signage, its flexible development, respond to market conditions and help support economic resiliency for an area that has seen limited economic development over the past 30 years.

And in terms of enhancing social sustainability, we believe that the PUD will create a well-connected area with a variety of uses and design that ranges in heights and respects the viewplane in the area, as called out from these narrative goals.

And then finally, in terms of incorporating high quality urban design into the area, it's worth noting that this would create a unique skyline for the site while remaining under our view plane.

It would be fronted with pedestrian-oriented plazas, active edges, and ground floor active uses that contain transparency, thus inviting people to come linger and enjoy the space.

And then the second review criteria that we look at for general rezonings is is this in the public interest?

And we believe that this particular rezoning achieves this particular criteria through implementation of our adoptive plans, but also through fostering a walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented development space and facilitating facilitating an entertainment and cultural destination within the city.

And then the third criteria for standard rezonings is consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose, and intent statements.

And this would achieve consistency with those as written into the PUD by requirement.

Now, because it's a PUD, this one is a little unique from standard rezonings in that in order to prove that a PUD is the right zoning for this site.

There are five additional criteria.

And you can read the PUD to see how we have achieved that.

The second is that it will comply with all applicable standards of division 9.6.

Again, the PUD outlines that it will do that.

The third is that the subject development on this proposed property is not feasible under any other zone districts and would require an unreasonable number of variances or waivers.

A stadium is not allowed under CMX 16 zoning, and the particular stadium would not fit on this site under a standard zone district without some deviations, which would require a diverse number of waivers.

And then the final two criteria are that the PUD should allow permitted uses and permitted building forms that are compatible with existing land uses nearby and building forms nearby.

And the property does comply with many of those land uses and built forms by creating these active edges, by creating these transparency requirements, and by building a stadium that really is an urban stadium not surrounded by a sea of parking, but is integrated into a larger entertainment district.

And so we believe that it does align with permitted uses and building forms with the surrounding zoning.

And with that, finding that all eight of the review criteria have been met, CPD recommends that the committee advance this on to a vote of the full council.

And we're gonna move on with our presentation.

Thank you.

I'll just chime in.

We have folks in queue, but we will wait until we've presented all of the items to get into questions.

Thank you.

So good afternoon, council.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

So today we are going to cover four different um agreements.

25-1553, which amends that 2017 uh IGA with the Metropolitan District, 25, 1850, which amends that 2025 IGA with Metropolitan District, 251552, which approves a stadium property agreement, and 25 1554, which approves a capital budget appropriation.

So the proposed changes to the 2017 IGA.

So the 2017 IGA is between the city and Broadway Station Metropolitan District.

The district was created in 2006, and it sets forth that improvements must be agreed upon in an IGA.

The 2017 IGA reflects the eligible improvements and the redevelopment plan that was amended in 2017.

The proposed changes reflects needed changes to Exhibit B and C.

Exhibit B depicts the infrastructure development budget, and exhibit C depicts the operations and maintenance matrix.

So the primary change to exhibit B includes adding the stadium to the list of eligible projects for TIFF funding.

Other changes include identifying the North Pedestrian Bridge as a regional project.

And because of the connectivity to the light rail station, it falls within the category of a regional project.

By doing this, it allows for the use of an already existing regional mill to be used on that project.

Other minor changes to exhibit B include updating descriptions to reflect the current infrastructure needs.

Next, we'll talk about the proposed changes to the 2025 IGA.

The 2025 IGA is also between the Metropolitan District and the city and was approved by council last May.

This IGA set forth the agreement on the acquisition, funding, and improvements of the Northwest Quadrant of the district called Santa Fe Yards.

It sets aside the locate uh the location of the stadium and other stadium set improvements.

The proposed changes to this IGA provides that the city will provide funding for the North Pedestrian Bridge and updates the TIFF waterfall.

Throughout the summer's work progressed on the mobility study, as well as conversations, the town halls in which the community has identified what infrastructure is important to support this whole development.

The Ped Bridge really um it will make the stadium experience, it will make for better connectivity and stronger neighborhood connections east and west.

So really important that as those conversations progressed, the funding of the bridge, and we'll talk about the capital stack too.

So we're the team, the district, RTD, and the city were all aligned in partnering to build that capital stack for that pedestrian bridge.

We've already had conversations with the state in partnership with RTD to apply for a transit-oriented communities infrastructure state grant.

We'll also be pursuing uh federal grant opportunities, and especially with the changes to exhibit B, classifying the North Ped Bridge as a regional project, that allows us using the regional mills to fund the North Pedestrian Bridge.

The other change within the 2025 IGA is the TIFF disbursement, where the developer and the city will share any available TIFF revenues on a pro-RATA 90-10 split.

So next we'll talk about the proposed stadium property agreement.

So this agreement is the tool to get the $50 million from the city's capital improvement fund to the metropolitan district.

So as set forth in the 2025 IGA, it really stipulated what that 50 50 million can be spent on.

And that 50 million of the city's contribution is capped at 50 million.

It can be spent on public land and stadium infrastructure improvements, such as roads, walkways, lighting, safety controls, utility improvements, storm drainage, excavation, earth work.

So really that infrastructure necessary needed for the stadium itself.

So this agreement is the tool to get that 50 million over.

And it also allows for the property sale to close this year and for the property itself to transfer to the metropolitan district.

It also, by transferring the 50 million over, it allows for that on site prep and infrastructure to begin in Q1 of 2026, which is necessary to meet the stadium time timelines opening in 2028.

And finally talking about the capital budget appropriation.

So, as we shared the spring, the city would only move forward with a budget appropriation if the rezoning is successful.

So the 2025 IGA stipulated two buckets of funding.

One kept at 50 million for the stadium site infrastructure, what I just uh spoke of, and 20 million for the offsite improvements to include Vanderbilt Park, East and West, and other trails and connectivity.

And this ordinance really focuses on the $50 million appropriation.

So it uh creates a new CIP program, a capital improvement program within our within our capital improvement program called Santa Fe Yards.

So it rescinds budget of elevate bond projects that were previously budgeted in our capital improvement program.

They were budgeted previously because of the cost escalations due to COVID, and so really completing uh the capital stack to keep those bond projects on scope and on schedule and on budget.

So we uh we did augment the capital stack using our capital improvement program.

So this ordinance now rescinds that budget and moves it over to the elevate interest.

It does not have any impact on bond projects.

It's more of an accounting shift.

And so by doing this, it creates capacity in our capital improvement program, which we will then appropriate in the new program I just talked about, the Santa Fe Yards program, and appropriates it for the infrastructure improvements and the land contribution.

The 20 million of the 20 million off site for Vanderbolt Park East and West and other connectivity, that will come in 2026 and 2027 in future budget appropriations.

And as you can see, the chart on the right, that shows the um the elevate interest earned.

Thus, about to date, uh, we have earned about $60 million in elevate interest, and you can see really where it peaks, that's we're taking advantage of the strong interest rate environment, and we're anticipating to accrue another five million dollars of interest through the end of the program through 2027 for a total of about 65 million dollars in elevate interest.

With that, I will turn it over to Rob to talk about the community outreach and involvement.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Nice to see all of you again.

Thank you very much.

Um I think you all know I'm Rob Cohen, controlling owner of Denver Summit FC, and uh I just wanted to give you a quick update on all the work that we've done since we last met in April.

Um, kind of talk to you about some of the different groups we've been meeting with.

Obviously, I'm gonna start with yourself, City Council.

Um, we told you guys in April you might be tired of us by the time we come back.

That's probably very true for many of you.

I know for some of you we've done three, four or five briefings now, but hopefully that process is really more about making sure you understand what it is we're asking for, making sure we understand what it is that that you're looking for and that what you need.

And I just wanted to thank each and every one of you for the time and energy that you put into it.

Um it means a lot to us.

Um, I also want to talk about the broader community as a whole, and uh, I'm sure you're aware, we've been quite busy uh out in the community, and and uh the enthusiasm for this project is contagious across our our city, state, and and region.

I think you know we we had 15,000 season ticket deposits.

We've now been converting those to season ticket holders.

We sold out our season tickets in eight days.

And so that happened very quickly, and I think you know we're now talking about our opening event being at Mile High Stadium in Power Field, and we're gonna try to break the all-time attendance record.

So we started selling tickets on Monday.

We're already off to a smashing start on that.

We're well ahead of our peer team, I guess I would say in Boston, who is also doing their opening game at Gillette Stadium.

The good news is they have slightly less seats to sell than we do.

Um so hopefully we can we can break that record.

Um we can't keep our merchandise in stock, so if we bring new stuff on, it sells out almost immediately, and if we replenish stuff, it sells out very quickly.

And so my point in all of this is just there's a there's tremendous support out there of people wanting this team and this stadium to be successful.

They want this to be um Denver and Colorado's team, and so um we're excited, we're excited about that.

I'm gonna spend most of my time talking about um the time we spend in the communities that live closest uh to the stadium.

And so um what while I don't have any slides today on the CBA process for a couple of reasons.

One, we haven't completed the process yet, but also we've signed a NDA between ourselves and the community that we will keep those discussions between us until we reach final agreement.

What I can tell you is we've made some substantial progress towards the CBA agreement, and um and I want to make you aware that we do have people here from the community who are either from the steering committee or from the negotiating team on the CBA.

I want to personally thank them for their time and energy.

It's a thinkless unpaid volunteer job really because they care about the community and they want to do something for the community.

So I want to thank you guys for your time and energy, and they they will be here if you're interested to make comment or answer questions if the chair um would like.

Um I also want to recognize uh the Denver Summit team, so specifically uh Jen Millet and Giselle, as well as um uh Jordan and Frank, who have been in a number of these uh meetings and um and working with our community day in and day out and at night.

So it's it's important.

So um I just have four quick slides that I'll go through and then we can get to QA.

And what I really wanted to do is focus on four groups.

I wanted to focus on how we engage the underrepresented communities that exist out there, how we held our community meetings and informational sessions uh with the community, um, how we created websites and surveys, etc.

to get feedback from people who may not want to attend meetings or or participate in other ways, and then how we tried to engage with people where they're at as opposed to um asking them to come to us.

So on this first slide, I'll just talk about um the outreach we did to underrepresented communities.

So we engaged Buku West um to help us create a plan to engage people that we do not uh typically hear from or that do not necessarily come to this.

We're very happy with their recommendations and their hard work.

And what they really did is help us get our word out and our events out uh through surveys, through multiple channels, through email lists, through uh Spanish media, local schools, soccer organizations, social media, all the things you might um expect to really engage that feedback.

I'll get into that a little bit more when we get to the websites and surveys.

The community meetings and informational sessions were robust as well.

We had several of those.

We had uh uh Inc.

sponsored a town hall that was an absolute packed house, um, where we got a lot of great feedback, and then the team hosted two town hall meetings, one at Athmar Park and then one on South Broadway.

Great engagement and feedback from those two.

We had probably over 200 people uh attend those events.

Um, and then we created a presentation that we could send to the ROs.

We called that the the road show.

Um, and so I believe at this point we have shared that with every RO um that's in the general vicinity of what we're doing.

And I know we're not supposed to pick favorites, but I would just say I think if you asked everybody on the outreach team, um, probably our favorite event was the bilingual uh soccer clinic um that we hosted at Valverde Park where we had 130 kids come up.

This was actually a suggestion of the CBA committee.

They gave us this input, and we're grateful for that, that feedback because we got a lot of incredible feedback at that meeting from families and kids to do that, and it really reminded us all of why we're doing the work that that we're doing in the community and that's out there.

Um the third thing is kind of the websites and surveys.

So we created a bilingual website and survey again to reach out to those people in the first category that I talked about.

Um, and they were we purposely advertised these links and these surveys to the closest communities because we didn't want our most rabid fans to drown out the voices of the community.

We wanted to make sure we were hearing from the community.

Um 160 of those surveys were completed, 40 of them were returned in in Spanish, and and that was translated for us by Buku West so that we could make sure that that we had that.

And the overall results were great enthusiasm and and feedback, and it probably won't shock you, but the themes that came out of that were transportation and infrastructure, economic development, jobs, and small business opportunities, and then interest in the park, the environment, the trail, and the connectivity between the neighborhoods.

And then last but not least, about the outreach where we tried to meet people where they're at, and um, you know, along with Buku West, the Denver Summit team really did a remarkable job in the summer and the fall trying to get out to the neighborhoods, and I I don't have time to go through them all, but a couple of them uh that just stand out for me personally, where we had team team members that helped create a garden at Florence Crittenden um in Valverde, um, and then we had a large team that actually participated in the Halloween parade down Broadway, um, both as volunteers and then as participants in the in the parade.

And um I think the important thing about that for us is we have absolutely loved being a member of this community and really engaging with the community, and we look forward um to doing that for years to come in the future.

And so um that concludes our presentation.

I'll hand the meeting back uh to council member Torres and we're ready to take questions.

Great.

Thank you all so much.

Um I will uh start with Councilman Flynn, and on deck is President Sandoval.

Thank you, Chair.

Tony, a quick question on not that I'm expecting that the stadium wouldn't be built, but when we rezoned this particular site.

If the stadium were not built there, this would apply to anything else that's built there.

So explain uh how the uh, you know, the zero setbacks, the all the things you discussed on whatever slide that was about 80 slides ago.

How that differs from the uh CMX 16 on the rest of the site, yeah.

So a lot of what we built actually mirrors the CMX 16.

So the CMX districts create those minimal setbacks, they can be between zero and something feet.

And so by creating the zero foot setbacks for this stadium, we are actually reflecting what CMX 16 looks like.

By removing the upper story setbacks that are required of the campus ENT, we're actually reflecting CMX 16 better.

Um, and so there were a lot of things that we built in to actually create that urbanist environment that isn't associated with our campus districts, but would allow for like an urban stadium.

Okay, so it's an additive rather than changing a lot of the standards.

It's basically adding where you wouldn't be able to build a soccer stadium in a CMX 16 right now, you can do anything you do in CMX 16 plus build a soccer stadium.

That's essentially what we tried to do, yeah.

The biggest things that are different from the CMX 16 are the fence language and the sign language, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

That's that's a very high level, very helpful to me.

Uh, not that I don't expect that that the intent would be to build the stadium, but just you know, in case.

Yeah.

Um Laura, could you walk us through the North Bridge payments?

Because when I saw the changes uh after reviewing the material, I thought we're taking on another that's probably a 20 million dollar thing.

So, particularly with the regional mills, I'm curious what is the opportunity cost of spending regional mill revenue on this addition to our response our responsibilities.

What doesn't get done with those regional mills?

How are they allocated before this?

Yeah, no, that's a great question, and thank you for that.

And I think that it really like through all of the conversations this summer and through um all the community engagement work that the team did and the outreach work, uh, really kind of it became abundantly clear on the importance of this bridge, both for the transit oriented development and the connectivity between the east and west.

And I think that's really why having the city uh take on this bridge and um because that's what we do.

We build those complex capital stacks, we work to partner with everyone, and and we're already taking on um a lot of the responsibilities and that partnership of building that capital stack.

Um and I can walk through kind of what we're doing and then get to your question about the regional mills as well.

Will that help?

Yes, it would.

And I agree the North Bridge is very important.

I just thought someone else is gonna pay for it.

Um well, so uh thus far we've already with RTD, we've already met with um with the state, and are we'll apply for the transit-oriented development grant, the transit-oriented communities infrastructure grant, and that grant uh is due on December 8th.

So we're working actively right now to pursue that grant.

We're also having multiple conversations with the state to tap into some of their other uh infrastructure funds, and and those conversations are ongoing.

Um, and additionally, you heard about Exhibit B.

So identifying that project as a regional mill project.

Right now, the other project identified for the regional mills is the Santa Fe.

The fifth lane.

And that's about three and a half million right now, but we're in conversations as well with the state as to whether or not um what what the um what will be the outcome of that project as well.

So uh to date, we've done projections on the regional mill.

It's currently in place, it's already been collected.

Um over the next um through 2046, we're anticipating to have about 14 million dollars um based on the current development plans for the um uh for the district, and then additionally, there's probably another 10 million through 2057 for the regional for the regional mills.

So I think the intent is uh we're also applying for federal grants, so in partnership with the team and the metropolitan district, we will be pursuing federal grants as well.

Um, but I think you know, with the state grant, the state conversations, RTD leaning in, um, and the regional mills, the intent is to really limit the exposure of our capital fund.

So, okay.

Is uh is are the um the five million dollars, I'm sorry, the three million dollars for the Santa Fe lane, is that the only other identified project?

There's other identified projects, but we have control over what uh what those regional mills will be spent on.

Certainly.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

All I have for now.

Okay.

Can I just add something to that?

Because I think it's important to note that the the bridge will take some time to build, so it's like a four to five year period of time because I'm sure you know the process we'll have to go through with the railroads to get that that approved, etc.

Yeah, whatever.

A lengthy process, I guess, is is is what I what I think easy, you know, should share.

And then just on the grants from the state, so we as a team have been advocating on behalf of the city.

Obviously, we can't apply for the grant.

You that has to come from you.

Um, and uh, I think you may or may not know they're $15 million pools that they give them out in, and so we have the ability to apply over a number of years to that grant, and so we're targeting 12 million just from those grants.

We don't control that, but I'm just, I wanted you to understand that's a significant portion of the request that we've made to the state and and and the process to help defray the cost.

Thank you, man.

I'm sure it's a obviously the North Bridge is very much needed.

It's just how's it gonna be paid for?

And when does it come?

Some great questions here.

Um, President Sandoval, then Councilwoman Alvides.

Thank you.

Thank you all for all of this information.

Um thanks for working on the TIFF waterfall that's been really important to me.

Um so on the stadium proper property agreement, section 2.2.

Um, it talks about all of the things that need to happen before the closing.

When is the closing?

Andrea, you want to answer that?

Come on up to the mic and introduce yourself if you wouldn't mind.

Sorry.

Andrea Austin, Greenberg Turk, representative outside counsel for the team.

We anticipate closing.

Fingers crossed, year end.

We have some paperwork that we're still working through related to parcels owned by CDOT.

So we have extension opportunities, hoping not to exercise those, but the goal really is to close by the end of this year.

12 31.

So how's the vacation of South Delaware Street?

Where's that in the process from Dottie?

Because that's a lengthy process and where we are.

It's like it has the rezoning, which we're here now.

The vacation of Delaware, any documents form is required to convey la IB land, the filing of the plat, amendment agreements to the IGA, which we're talking about, amendment agreement to the 2017 IGA 20.

So that's a like I haven't seen the I'll call Frank vacation come through.

So can someone from Dotty, though, from our city side talk about that?

Because it's identification.

And because the reason I'm asking is because the vacation is the city council process.

I can take a crack at that.

Uh Frank Cannon, uh consultant to the Denver Summit FC ownership.

Um application was submitted months ago for the vacation of the former Delaware Street right-of-way.

Uh has been through its formal review with Dotty and approved, been through survey review and approval.

I believe the last I heard the ordinance was being drafted, but I don't know that it has been scheduled yet for final hearing, but it's gotten through all of the staff reviews teed up for council action.

So can I have a formal answer?

I'm not not to not to say that, but it's literally a city council action to vacate.

So just so we all know what we're talking about public, when you take lamb that is for public use, like right of weight to vacate it is a city council process.

So I'm looking at that was not listed as something that I was gonna have to do on the whole list that you all gave us.

So that's another addition on top.

So that's why I'm asking when the closing is because we don't have very many more council meetings.

I was just talking about this.

We don't have very many committee meetings, and it can be pulled off of consent, doesn't have to just go through consent.

So to say that we're closing on 1231 and have this long list of things that are happening.

Um makes me feel a little bit nervous.

Hi, Brad Beck, City Attorney's Office.

I can confirm that uh Frank's information is correct that we have completed the process to get ready to submit it, but it has not been submitted.

Yeah, so we're we're there, we're right on the precipice of it, but it has not been.

And are there any outstanding like um reviews that need to like, because a lot of times when you have to vacate, there's other other um easements that have to happen, underground utility easements will have all of those that are the eight.

Yeah, those reviews have been completed by both the Dottie team and the city attorney's office.

Okay, so if I go into the e-verification, look up the the Delaware.

It's a public process, uh public it is a public process.

So I'll look it up, okay.

But I would answer any questions offline if you have them, yeah.

No, I've just wanted to do all this online because I think it's super in public that the public understand what we're approving.

Um, okay, so can the team I need a formal answer from Dotty.

I need to know when the ordinance is coming.

I want to know if it's gonna be scheduled for committee.

I want to know when it's coming to city council.

That's really I didn't realize that.

I just caught that when I was scanning over the requirements.

So thank you for that.

When we're talking about the amendment to the 2025 IGA, I think it's the 2025 IGA, it doesn't say at the top, it's section 4.1, and it adds the um north bridge, and it says as approved by the managers, subject to annual appropriations and budget approval.

The city shall be responsible for providing sufficient funding to the district for the cost and performance of the acquisition design construction and complete completion of the new bridge.

When does that like how does that work if we don't have the funding right now?

Like when does that come into play?

Because the way that I read it, I could be reading it wrong.

Um it's a we have to appropriate it every budget cycle.

We would have to.

So does that is this in the 2026 budget cycle?

No, the the North Ped Bridge is not the 2026 uh budget cycle, and we're really learning more about the timing of the bridge, you know, uh building up the capital stack.

So, like I mentioned earlier, the the regional mills, the TOC grant, uh other federal uh grants that we're applying for as well.

So once we know more about what that capital stack is, then we'll um we'll have more information if we have to appropriate anything in future budget years, but that would go through the annual budget process.

Okay, so when does how does this when does this get enacted?

If we're approving this right now, like as part of this package moving forward and it says subject to annual appropriations of budget approval, so I would just I would be expecting to see it in the 2027 budget, right?

Because if this language is very explicit, it's pretty explicit language to have it that explicit in there.

I've never seen language like that explicit that so I just I'm just concerned that like we're taking the cart before the horse.

Like because this also means that if we have to approve the funding for all performance acquisition, if we have to do anything with the um the is it Union Pacific, or which rail line are we dealing with?

Both it's both so if we have to buy anything from Union Pacific or anything like we would have we are responsible for that according to this IGA?

I think that yeah, the intent of the language is certainly to clarify that we've got a lot of work to do with the railroads to get the approvals that we need.

Those issues to work through there.

We have control over the design of the bridge, which is important, so we can control costs, and then yes, as Laura's talked about, you know, it's it is our our responsibility to bring all the partners together and pursue all these different funding sources for the capital stack.

So can I ask Brad?

Can I ask the attorney?

Can I phone a friend?

If this is in the IGA, do we have to the way that it's read right now that I'm reading the blue line?

It says subject to annual appropriation and budget approval.

Would that mean we have to have it appropriated somewhat in 2027?

That's in the IGA, if we're amending the IGA.

I would agree, Brad.

Different.

Uh Brad Newton City Attorney's Office.

Very good question.

Uh, President Sandoval.

Um, it does not mean that you have to be appropriating it in 27 or in any third year, it just means the obligation will arise once it has been appropriated by council.

Once the once we've appropriated in a budget cycle, in a budget year or within a budget year, got it.

Okay, um, thank you.

Andrew would like to make an additional comment if that's okay.

Yeah.

I just wanted to clarify that we control the landing sites, RTD controls the landing site on one side, and the district controls the landing site on the other.

So acquisition of property is not really the time consuming factor, it's really the design because we have to go over the tracks, and that's just a long process, but acquisition, all of that in terms of the land, is under control by either RTD or the district.

Just wanted to.

Um, so if we have to, if we can't get the vacation and all of the things that are under 2.2 in the closing doc.

Will you please inform us when the closing date is?

I would just really appreciate as this moves forward.

Like if you do hear just vacations are super challenging.

And I didn't realize I didn't think about that.

So where is Dottie not here?

Because they're in court, they're in charge of the plat, right?

So where are we on the plat?

I that once again that comes as a city council action.

That's according to these closing docs.

So where are we on the plat?

Do we need a phone Dottie and ask them to come here?

Yeah, they were good, Steve.

Good afternoon.

So Stephen Wilson from community planning and development.

Uh so the plat has been submitted, it's gone through several reviews, and we're providing comments back this week.

So the technical review is making good progress.

And then to your point, it will come to city council as soon as that's ready.

I don't think it will be before the end of the year.

Um but um uh let the city attorney talk to sort of the procedure on closing.

Okay, and and if I could I'll provide one update on the vacation.

Um, so the vacation uh request is uh have an update from Dottie, it was from a couple of weeks ago, um, but that is in their hands to submit, so you should see that on the council calendar soon.

Uh, but well, good point on busyness in terms of now and the end of the year.

Okay, so the plat wouldn't, it doesn't sound like it would be council, because I would the reason I was late to committee is I was looking at the council calendar for another board that I sit on.

We only have like five more meetings, four more meetings.

Um, and we only have four more weeks of committee.

Um, so it would sound like we might have to exercise one of our closings.

So could you please let us know so that we can know we have this all tied up in a vote?

Okay, thank you.

One last uh other question I have, and then I'll read them.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the 20,000 dollars, not the 50, the two buckets of money, there's the 50.

20 million.

20 million, sorry, 20 million.

Where is where is that referenced in any of these documents?

So that 20 million bucket is in the 2025 IGA.

Okay, and so it's capped at 20 million, and it is for the off-site public improvements, so being Vanderbilt Park East and West, uh Santa Fe, uh Santa Fe, other trails and connectivity, and so um, what's that?

And the North Bridge, is that being added?

That is not considered in the 20 million currently, and so um uh that 20 million will be appropriated in future budget years.

So in 26, uh, we um do have six million budgeted just identified uh within the um it's in a different capital program that we can uh and and then the future would be in 27 appropriation again, utilizing the elevate interest um as the the backing for that.

And does that go into the same escrow account or a different account?

It will be in future budget appropriation, so it'll be handled differently.

It will not go in that it will not, so the only the 50 million will go into that escrow.

Yes, okay, and the escrow and that goes to the metropolitan district, yes, I'm looking at the city attorney.

Is there someone from the metropolitan district?

Because we're not technically just so I'm clear, we're not giving the 50 million to you, correct, Rob?

We're giving the 50 million to the metropolitan district.

Is there a representative from the metropolitan district here?

Mark Tompkins.

Good afternoon, Mark Tompkins, president of the Broadway Station Map District.

So with when we appropriate the 50 million dollars into that escrow accounting, how how do you on your side as the metro district manage it?

Do you have a separate account for it?

Do you have a different like auditing system for it?

Because it's taxpayers' dollars.

I would just want to know just if you could give this a little overview.

Sure.

Uh, there is a funding agreement that is also being negotiated that really lays out, and I think we've been very clear in these negotiations that the district doesn't want to have any discretionary authority or power in this.

We want to disperse the funds exactly the way the city, the club, the agreements dictate.

So we have asked for very precise language around how we would disperse those funds.

Uh, and I believe in the funding agreement it says that the city auditor will be coming and checking on us and our performance at some point in time.

So we're prepared for that.

We've talked to the city about it.

The city has worked with our pro or excuse me, we've talked to the club about it.

The club has worked with our project management team, knowing that we need to keep meticulous records of how we will disperse these funds pursuant to the agreements.

And then do we get a copy of that or can we see a copy of that?

Where's the and how far is you said it's being negotiated right now?

When do you expect it to be done?

I believe I'm gonna turn to the city attorney on that because I have uh my eyes cross with all of the documents and agreements that we have been um working on.

But I know the title of it is the funding agreement.

Thank you.

Bradbeck.

Hi, Bradbeck, city attorney's office.

The funding agreement will have a list of exactly which projects those money, which items those monies can be used for.

We have our standard audit provisions in that agreement, so our auditor has full access to everything.

Will city council see it?

How can I obtain a copy of it?

And when will it be done?

Time, Jim.

I can't.

By closing.

By the closing of the I guess I need a clarification.

Are you asking about when the monies are actually spent what they need to spend on?

The funding agreement.

I want to see the funding agreement because if I'm appropriating, I feel like it should be in it for me.

The way that my mind works is I would like it to be an amendment, like exhibit to one of these agreements because I think that's really important for just transparency, right?

Yeah, I I agree.

I think some of some of the things we've been trying to work on very is identifying with some specificity on what those are, but the infrastructure master plan is still in process.

So while we can say they will be a public public expenditure on a public asset, there is some flex in that that we're still trying to work through before the closing deadline.

Okay, so let me ask one more time for like the third time.

How can I see a copy of it?

How can we transparently on city council if we're appropriating money over?

I want to see the funding agreement.

Yeah, the funding agreement will be filed.

Jim Owens with the city attorney's office.

So the funding agreement isn't is an exhibit to the saving property agreement.

Yeah, it's blank on our finalized and and signed before the closing on the BSP property.

Okay, so it would go into council.

How will council see it?

No one's answering the question.

Because it is attached to, it will be attached to the state and property agreement that will be submitted to council with in the next day or so.

Yeah, but it's not it's blank.

I'm telling you, it's blank right now, it's not.

Well, it has all the terms in it.

There are a few blanks in it.

I think the blanks have to do with how much of the 50 million is going to purchase price for the BSP property, how much has to be paid to see that to relinquish their interest in certain property, and then the remainder goes to the improvements.

So the idea is, sorry, I'm not sure what you're looking at.

Okay.

I'm not sure about the document that's been given to you.

Yeah, that did not come from the city attorney's office, because we're still working with Andrea Shaw in order to finalize that exhibit.

So Andrea, that core agreement was in all of the documents that were sent to all council members last week.

Yeah, and parts of our blank.

The agreement itself is not blank.

No, I want to see the funding, like the money.

It's yeah, the money is all in the funding agreement.

Yeah, but it's not there is the specific allocations of how that's spent.

So that's what I want to see.

Right.

We're still working on that because we are probably three months from getting construction estimates on exactly what that allocation is.

My understanding is that in the briefings, that Laura and Frank went over each of those categories and the estimated cost allocated to each of those categories, totaling approximately 20 million dollars.

Right.

They would have to confirm that because I wasn't there.

But that each of those cost categories and the estimated costs are exactly what we provided.

So can I just go on the record and say as someone who's moving money, lots of millions and millions of dollars of capital improvement?

It's really important that these documents come holistically to us.

So let me just say to you all, can I please see that?

If I let me let me say this a different way, City Council approved a deal with Westside, and we found out after that 20 acres were given after we approved it.

I want to make sure that what I'm approving on the night of the 15th is what is happening.

I just need to, it's my job.

I've told you this like 100 times.

I trust you, I just have to verify it.

It's literally what I was elected to do.

It's literally my job.

And I asked the American questions.

Will this be available to us by the time things come to council?

It doesn't sound like it.

Well, December 15.

Yeah, I guess I could add one thing to that, just to be in President Samble, you mentioned the West Side situation.

I guess similar to that situation, you know, that that deal was capped at 12.7 million dollars for the value.

In this situation in this project, we are capping our costs, right?

$50 million for on-site plus infrastructure plus the land, 20 million dollars for off-site.

We are capping the city's exposure.

We are we're very clear on the categories of what the money can be spent on.

That has been shared with council extensive.

We can certainly share that again.

We can share the estimated costs for the infrastructure that fall within those categories.

There may be some movement as we finalize the IMP, etc.

There may be some slight movement, but but not it would not exceed the city's capped cost for either the onsite or the off-site infrastructure.

So I think that want to be very, very clear about, and that won't change.

No, you're not picking up what I'm throwing down.

I'm just saying that when I approve something, I want to see the whole entire package, and I understand there can be movement.

We're very flexible people until we're not.

And so I just want to see the even estimates on there, because they're not on there currently what I'm looking at.

And so I would just it it matters to the new.

Thank you.

We'll get you the categories plus the estimates.

Okay.

So yes, we can do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, okay, we've got 20 minutes of committee time.

Uh for council members and queue.

Uh, Councilmember Albizas.

Thank you so much.

Um, and thank you for your questions, Council President.

Thank you all for the work.

And I do want to especially thank the community members that have been dedicating their time.

I talk to my residents and um presidents of the ROs all the time, and I feel like almost every time I'm talking to Anita, she's on her way to a meeting or from a meeting.

Um, and so thank you for all of that.

And I did want to give the community a chance, uh, especially the chair of the community benefit agreement a chance to share like what has your experience been.

How are you feeling about negotiations?

I did see your press release this morning, but is there anything else that you'd like to share with us?

Okay, okay, can you repeat what she said?

She said not at this time.

Um, so thank you for that, and thank you for all your volunteer efforts.

Um, I did uh I have been asking, and this might be for Tracy about the TIFF projections.

I haven't seen those yet.

If I could have those TIFF projections, that would be something I would really like to see.

Well, there's not, well, there is a question.

The answer is yes.

Tracy, can you introduce yourself?

Hi, Tracy Huggins.

I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority.

But with that, is it possible for me to provide a little bit more color?

Because I want to make sure that there's clarity on what we mean by the TIFF waterfall.

And as I do that, I'd like to invite Mark Tompkins to uh to stand with me because I think this is it, it's important for us all to understand.

So when city council approves an urban renewal plan and authorizes the establishment of a tax increment area, that then allows the tax increment that is generated by the project to flow to Dura.

It's a Dura resource.

Dura then enters into an agreement with a redeveloper, in this case, the metropolitan district, under which we agree to reimburse certain costs that they have incurred.

In this transaction, that's the importance of exhibit B that you heard about before, because that then identifies which costs we are able to reimburse to the district.

So the TIFF projections that we have put together, and I want to make sure it's also very clearly understood.

They are exactly that.

They are projections.

We only have a finite amount of time that is left.

We have yet to see vertical development happen anywhere on the site, but we have put together projections that assume some development beginning to occur, I think as soon as next year, to then be able to say here's how much tax increment we think is going to be generated.

If I could just add, when you're talking about some development, you're talking about other parcels.

Yes, the entirety of the urban renewal area and the probably more importantly, the tax increment area.

So that includes the southeast portion that is controlled primarily by Endeavor, the Southwest portion by GID, and then the portion of the site that is under discussion right now.

So the sum total of available tax increment that we are forecasting is about a hundred and fifty-eight million dollars.

We will use that 158 to reimburse approximately again.

Please hear me when I say their forecasts and they are they are estimates.

Approximately we anticipate 80 million dollars in costs to the district.

The difference there obviously is there's interest components there.

So once the district receives that tax increment, then they are in a position to use those resources to satisfy their obligations.

So this is where I'm gonna step aside and let Mark talk about their obligations and how those then tie into the 2025 IGA.

So I think we're talking about the TIFF waterfall after it comes to the district under the payments that Tracy has just described.

The district has two pre-existing obligations, one is the 2023 bonds in the amount of 16.8 million dollars, and so principal and interest will be paid down to those bondholders with those revenues, and then um there are outstanding developer advances that funded an additional approximately 16 million dollars.

Um that would be the second tier of the waterfall, and then the 90 10 split that we just talked about would um kick in.

Clear?

Great, thank you.

Great, thank you.

Um thank you for that.

Um this don't leave yet, Tracy.

Next question's for you as well.

Um, how does Dura oversee the construction and goals like business requirements, small business requirements, prevailing wage on Dura-funded projects?

Can you just speak a little bit to that?

Sure.

So much of that work is not done by Dura because it is an existing metropolitan district, and they per the service plan have their own obligations and mechanisms by which those components are monitored, and so Mark would have to be the one that answers that from a Dura programmatic standpoint, first source hiring, project art, those type of things, those are managed by us again directly with the district.

But those items that you talked about before are really outside the purview of Dura.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um of the questions that I've gotten from community is about the extra lane on Santa Fe.

Has there been any exploration?

And it's unfortunate that no one from DOTI is here because they're very important to this project.

But has there been a pursuit of not having to add that lane because pedestrian safety is something that's very important to my residence, and adding that lane feels um to the community, like adding a lack of safety instead of a better mobility to the light rail station.

You want me to I can take it at a high level, then I'll add it to someone much more.

I mean, just from the Shannon Gifford also stood up, so just in case you need a phone in front of us.

But go ahead, Rob.

Well, I was just gonna, I was just gonna say the mobility study actually says the need for this lane is in the future.

And so one of the requests that that we have made is a deferral on that, but not from a we don't believe that that would impact safety, which I think is your question, because it's about flow and and traffic, which this study correct me if I'm wrong was done prior to the pandemic when studies when transportation was higher than it is today.

But I'll pause there because I'm way outside my my technical knowledge zone.

That's a very good answer, up to a point.

Um when you get into these like really talking.

Shannon, can you introduce yourself?

Shannon Gifford from the mayor's office.

We get into these very technical mobility type discussions.

Um, some of us, most of us can't really understand what's going on down in the weeds.

At the same time, the engineers who are working on them don't necessarily understand the political context that we're looking at in terms of community concerns about you know additional traffic and trying to get people a way to access you know transit through pedestrian um so forth.

So we have been having um, you know, political discussions with the technical people, and I think that we're making some progress and just trying to help people understand why as a city we would really prefer to see money go to the pedestrian bridge and not to this fifth lane, and specifically um part of their, you know, the the wheels are turning.

Um so some of the engineers at CDOT, at the last conversation we had on Friday morning, I think it was Friday morning, um, said, aha, well, maybe if we redid the numbers and assumed that more of the traffic coming to this site, coming to the stadium would be coming by transit.

We wouldn't be assuming quite as much traffic would be coming on that fifth lane.

So, you know, all I can say is we're making progress.

There's a persuasion effort to kind of go back and rethink the numbers and rethink how they're modeling this, um, but we're not quite there yet.

But we're we're definitely making an effort.

I appreciate that.

Um one of the other concerns that I'm hearing from the community directly is around climate goals and the carbon footprint that the stadium will, you know, may or may not have, and the heat island effect.

So I'm curious about um what those conversations have looked like, how energized Denver does affect a stadium like this, and what your commitments or thoughts are on the stadium actual construction, what there'll be solar or other, you know, types of power.

No, it's a great, it's a fantastic question, and obviously sustainability is important to uh not only us as an ownership group, but to our community at large.

It's it's part of the DNA of Denver and Colorado.

Um that's one of the reasons why our plan is to build, um, have to be careful whether it's the second or third, we're not exactly sure, but the second or third all electric stadium or arena in the country, so climate uh pledge arena in Seattle is the first arena in the country, and there are now two stadiums in the country that are looking to be all electric.

There's one in New York that is looking at it, and then our stadium, which will be all electric.

Um, the conversations that we've had with the community is the around the importance of sustainability, and Jordan, who is our stadium project manager, actually ran the Austin uh stadium down there and is very familiar with sustainability from an operation standpoint, and the majority of our conversations have been around the importance of a cert of a certification, whether that's leads, or is it more important that we actually do sustainable work in terms of the construction of the project and the operation of the building on a day-to-day basis, and how important is it for us to pay to go through like a lead process and have a certain certification and a plaque versus actually having the the work done in the building from a sustainability but um suffice it to say it's very important to us, and we're committed to having sustainable in construction and in the operations of the building.

I really appreciate that.

I will share like one of the issues that I've had in Southwest Denver along Broadway and in these neighborhoods is power outages.

And so I think you know, all electric is good.

However, that takes a lot from our grid, that takes a lot from our power.

So uh how would you speak to that part of it, which is honestly a very big concern for me?

You know, we have very cold winters, losing power on and losing power for the local restaurants means they're out of business, it means they lose food, it means people lose work.

So that is actually a little bit more important to me.

No, it's a it's a fantastic question, and that's one of the reasons we've had ongoing dialogue with Excel.

In fact, I had a conversation with Holly this morning about XL's commitment, um, not only to making sure that we have access to power, but that we have uh backups to the backup plans um for it.

And um, she has reassured me that it is a high priority for XL, and that our project is uh that whole area is a high priority for them in terms of the work that they'll be doing.

So I can't speak for Excel, but that's I guess I am still missing one little piece, and then I'll let my colleagues ask some questions.

Just um I understand that, but is there any plan to do power outside of Excel, like solar, like geothermal, like any other thing.

I've heard that you can do stadium lights that are completely solar, and so not pulling from the grid would be ideal or pulling less from the grid would be ideal for me, and that carbon footprint is still there.

They're looking right now at expanding um a coal plant in Pueblo for a long time.

So the idea that it's all electric doesn't mean that it's not affecting footprint other way.

So, but I will let's get to that.

That's ongoing dialogue.

We haven't made those decisions, but we are having those discussions with the architects and the project managers.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, committee chair.

Thank you.

Um council member parity on Zoom and then Councilman Heinz.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Um I want to get into some of the um changes that have happened since we got the economic analysis from our city economist uh Lisa Martinez Templeton.

And I should have checked in with her and asked her to potentially update that analysis.

I didn't think to do that because I wasn't the one that solicited it originally, um, but I may see if she's able to do that before this is heard on the floor.

Um, because first of all, I know that she used um models to do that, which you know make a take account of a lot of general economic kinds of things.

And until you run the models, I don't know that you always know how that's gonna look.

But in addition to that, um, the model had some specifics in it around property tax, which are obviously implicated by um by this ask around uh TIFF financing.

So the first thing that I want to make sure I understand is just to really spell out um, in addition to the numbers about how much is already owed in future property tax to the um bondholders and developer advancers.

Um, I want to make sure that we're really clear how much the team is going to be asking for in TIFF reimbursement, um, because that really impacts the way the numbers come out in that economic impact analysis.

So, can we talk about that first?

Mark would have to.

She's asking how much TIFF is going to the bondholders.

No, I'm asking how much TIFF is being requested by the ownership group.

Tracy already answered how much TIFF is going to the bondholders.

Um, district can only disperse what it gets.

Um, and I think Tracy has uh uh referenced the junior subordinate bonds that what what the district has to do is it has to um submit costs.

We got projections about expected property tax that we would be bringing in, and those are quite different if the amount of TIFF reimbursement that the ownership group would eventually hope to request has gone up, which I understand that it has.

I am asking for that number.

I can someone clarify as well on the.

I don't think our TIFF request has gone up.

I'm sorry, I when I met with Dan.

I'm gonna try.

Hi, hello, councilwoman.

I don't know where to look with you uh being on the screen, so at the uh at the uh at the chair.

So when I present the the TIFF projections to you all, I think perhaps it will um answer your question in that we will show within the tax increment area what are the base collections that are part of our our forecast and what are the incremental amounts of of taxes.

All of that base continues to flow to the original taxing entities, the increment comes to Dura.

Once then paid to the district, the district then, as Mark described, will use those amounts to pay their obligations, within the last year of that waterfall being the 90 10 split.

So it is really the allocation between the city and the team of that remainder at the bottom of the waterfall.

So with what I can provide to you all as far as our projections, and then I'm not quite sure, Mark, what you can can provide regarding your utilization, that I think will at least explain what the projected amount of receipt by the team and the city would be.

How that then gets in, you know, included in the economic forecast is beyond my pay grade.

But we can at least help with what we know within the box, it is the tax increment.

Okay, and and that is helpful, Tracy.

But what I'm trying to get at is that in the economic impact study, and this may be a question for Jeff because he's the one that circulated that to us, it projected that we would be getting like $360 million of property tax revenues.

Um, and that of course, um, I assume that I assume, although I I don't know this for sure, that that was accounting for um, you know, having first paid back the bondholders, and then having paid whatever else has to be paid under this TIFF waterfall, including paying back the city for our um investment 10% at a time, and then paying back the ownership group for their investment in the stadium 10% at a time.

So if those repayment numbers have gone up, then it'll be a much longer time before the city sees property tax revenue, to my understanding, which impacts the economic impact study.

Is that um I is there something in there that I'm saying that's incorrect?

Hi, it's Tracy again.

I think the only point um uh councilwoman is the fact that we can only, we Dura can only collect the property tax increment through 2042.

Okay.

So once that time has told, there is no continued collection by Dura.

There is no continued payment to the district, and therefore there is no continued distribution to either the city or the team.

Unless it's extended, right?

Which it could be um highly unlikely.

There is a provision in count in statute that allows for the extension of a tax increment area, but only with the pending um default on a bond, which we could not have in this circumstance.

So I think it's fair to say a very low likelihood, if any, that the tax increment area would be extended.

So if at the end of 2042 there has not been enough tax collected um to fully reimburse the city or to fully reimburse the ownership group for its investment in the stadium, at that point, we would be expected to just stop receiving reimbursement for those things.

That is correct, as I understand it, yes.

Because Dura would have no more resource to be able to distribute.

Okay.

And then at that point in time, um, we would be collecting property tax.

Uh this is, I guess, a question.

Um, my understanding, but I want to make sure this is right, is that the land would continue to be tax exempt because um the district will remain the owner of it, so it remains publicly owned, but that we would receive property tax on the actual um improvements on the land.

Is that right?

Yes, in addition to any incremental revenues that have been generated through redevelopment of the entire tax increment area, because it's one tax increment area.

Yeah, okay.

Let me just interject, hang on, councilwoman parody, because we have one minute to end of committee time.

If um, if we can stay another five to 10 minutes, just so that we can wrap this up and make sure folks get through their questions.

That'd be great.

Okay.

I mean, this is really important, right?

Because we we were given this, and I know council member sawyer um for one talked about this being part, you know, an important component of her vote.

And so, and it, but the um the economic impact analysis, I think a lot of the assumptions underpinning that have really changed.

And in particular, I don't think it was based on um like a where we're at now with our understanding of um how much property tax uh that comes in in the future would end up going to reimburse the city, how much would end up going to reimburse the ownership group, especially now that the stadium costs are projected to be 300 million instead of the 150 to 200 million that were heard before.

Um, and then how much of that would start coming into the city in what amounts starting in 2042?

And that's it's just incredibly important because the other projected economic benefits of this are so uncertain and so subject to displacement events or displacement um impacts, which were not part of that study, that I cannot see spending 50 million dollars to buy to of public money of CIP money for land for a private project that's for private profit if the economic impacts um are not what they were represented to be.

So I just it's really important to me to understand the property tax numbers and what's projected at this point.

I understand conceptually what you're describing to me, but I really need math on this, and I need that economic impact study to be updated.

Thank you.

Laura, did you want to comment?

Yeah, the and council and tardi, we can absolutely ask Lisa Martinez Templeton to uh to update that study with any new information over the past uh six months, but I also just want to clarify that um the economic study, it took all of the property tax and it just used the base property tax valuations.

It did not use the TIFF property tax in there.

So just wanted to clarify that.

Right.

So you can see why the email, the email that we got from Jeff saying that we would get 330 million dollars of property tax revenue is just not accurate, and we really we really can't have that level of inaccuracy at this point.

So I would appreciate an update to the study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We need to move on.

Kelly's uh thank you, committee chair.

Um I want to um, questions, I do want to put a couple things on the record, both about values, values as and what's in our heart and also values and numbers.

Um uh value of a strong center city.

Uh, I want to thank um thank you for uh considering a place of a location in our center city.

It has been a vision for Denver leaders for decades to have a single strong center city, and um uh so I want to thank you for that commitment to being in the center city.

Um also the value of mode shift um has also been a vision of Denver leaders for decades to mode shift to non-car transit when possible.

Uh, we all deserve the freedom to get from A to B safely no matter how we choose to get there.

Um, so um so thank you for uh putting the north bridge on the prairie list.

Um, and you know, given this governor's commitment to transit oriented development, limiting parking rooms, unlocking additional housing density, and his attention towards RTD, I sure hope he favorably considers our application.

Um there's also the value of a great Colorado outdoors, this being an outdoor venue.

Um, about numbers.

Council President, you talked about um this uh um uh you know West side, um Mr.

Dillon, you said this uh this is a you talked about a west side situation.

Um respectfully it's a mayor situation, uh, when we have um you know um extra acres going that we don't know about our flock contracts and um the mayor is part of this conversation, and so that's why we want to know the numbers.

We've we don't want to continue to get um uh surprised.

So just want to leave it there.

Thank you, committee.

Thank you so much.

Um I'll forego my questions.

I think my colleagues have hit on um most of what I was interested in getting uh some follow-up follow-up on.

Um I do want to know um the action.

Uh we have five items uh requiring action.

Um is there a motion?

Do we need to take these separately?

Can we consider them in a block?

Um Madam Chair, I have a question.

Yes.

Um so to the project team, there's five action items.

Um that we'd be voting on.

Can we move the rezoning to not have the rezoning?

Because I know the rezoning, I don't think we've had one question on the rezoning.

The rezoning is like the simplest thing out of the whole entire package.

Can we move the rezoning and then continue to work on these other action items because the 50 million, like I just feel like there's a lot, and is there a way I'd have to ask the city attorney to move the rezoning out of committee so we don't have to like scheduling a public hearing, like I don't know, I'm gonna get into it, and then keep the other four action items, and then we'd have to like direct file them because the next time would be, I don't know, madam chair, I'd have to ask you.

So we have a meeting on um December 10th.

Um, we had already delayed one briefing that was supposed to be today to December 10th.

So we would be moving uh Rocky again, but we could, it's just a briefing.

Um uh so we could have half of that meeting.

And then we could could we direct uh could I phone a friend, Brian?

Would we have could we direct if we went through committee and we moved them?

Could we direct file them the next day?

And you're asking about the other four items, yeah.

Because in the next day, they've Thursday, Wednesday, Thursday, the agenda comes out, and then we'd have they could be heard as a package on the 15th.

Because the rezoning one is the one that needs the notice uh before hearing.

Everyone picking up what I'm throwing in.

Yeah, so we've got two IGA amendments, uh property agreement and the budget appropriation.

Bryan, is there any issue with direct filing those after that December 10th meeting?

Uh, Brian Drady Assistant City attorney, I don't believe so.

I'm double checking with someone else, but that should be fine.

Okay.

And for the mayor's office, we would skip mayor council, it's gig all the pop and pump and circumstance.

But it if we don't have like the vacation and the plat, it doesn't sound like you guys are gonna make it to the closing by December 31st.

Um, stuff in the goal.

Um but I mean we even have a council meeting on the 22nd.

It would still all be done.

Council, like committee members, yeah.

That's what I'm proposing.

Okay, so if I can um you want me to do no, no, no, I can do it.

I can here's what I'm interpreting.

I'm the president interpreter.

Um we've got a motion, I'll make the motion on the floor to move um 25, 1541, the rezoning, uh, forward to the floor.

We will do a roll call on this one.

Um, I need a second on that.

Councilman Heinz seconded.

Um, Alyssa, can you do roll call?

Council members albidras?

Aye, Flynn.

All right.

Heinz?

Parity.

Send a ball.

Aye.

Watson?

Aye.

Uh madam chair.

Aye.

And then to um hold the other items for December 10th.

We need to just uh um propose amending to a date certain.

Yep, yes, okay.

So then I move to um postpone 1553, 1850, 1552, and 1554 to uh SPR committee on December 10th.

Madam Chair, can I just just so you guys know I'm out of town on the 10th, so I'll not be able to be here.

Okay.

I think we zoom in.

I think I'll be on a flight at the exact time of this meeting, but uh I'll check.

Okay, all right.

Whoever else can be in your place, Rob, that would be great.

And I think it's just a lot of more specificity from the city side.

I think it's really our side that that's why I want to hold it.

Is it I keep asking the city attorney Dottie?

So we could just wrap this up.

I need a second on that.

Second.

Uh Councilman Watson had his hand up.

Um let's do a roll call on that.

Council members.

Alvidus.

Hi.

Can you say that again?

Watson.

Aye.

Madam Chair.

Aye.

Um, so that is now postponed those four items um to December 10th.

Um we are adjourned.

Uh we have items eight items on consent.

Take a look at them.

Let me know if you need anything pulled off.

Thank you all.