Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Community Planning and Housing Committee with Denver City Council.

Your community planning and housing committee starts now.

Okay.

Welcome everybody to our Denver City Council Community Planning and Housing Committee.

It is Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025.

Somehow.

I am Sarah Perity, one of your council members at large, and we will start with Councilmember introductions to my right with Councilmember Torres.

Good afternoon, Jimmy Torres West Denver District 3.

Good afternoon.

Flora Alvidres, lucky to strike seven.

Good afternoon, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Good afternoon, Amanda Sorry, District 5.

Afternoon, Chantalou is district.

Amazing.

We have an early start today because we have a packed agenda, which we seem to be having in this committee every day from now till the end of the year.

So I will um we'll start with host.

We have Melissa here to present on our host stability contracts.

How many of them?

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight of them in a mere 37 slides.

And we will try to keep to around 40 minutes all together with questions.

So I'll ping you if I feel like we're if we're slipping too much on time, but otherwise the time is yours.

Introduce yourself, take it away.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for having me.

Melissa Tati, I am the director of stability and prevention with the Department of Housing Stability.

And today I will be talking talking to you about our 2026 new and amended contracts.

So as you mentioned, we have several contracts before you today for approval.

Several of them are for the temporary rental and utility assistance program, also known as TRUA.

There are two for the property tax relief program, one for foreclosure financial assistance, and lastly for housing resource navigation.

We will also be having one future action item coming forward next week for another housing resource navigation contract in addition to fair housing education and enforcement.

Just a reminder of where stability and prevention falls within host spectrum of work.

We'll be talking about several of these programs today and have presented on eviction legal assistance recently as well.

So I wanted to just give an update on the temporary rental and utility assistance program.

So Trua provides up to six months of rental assistance and one payment per utility for both Denver Water and Excel Energy.

We can also provide relocation assistance if we're unable to stabilize a household in their current residence.

It is available to households at or below 80% of the area median income in the city and county of Denver who are experiencing a financial hardship and who have a rent demand or in the eviction process.

Households who receive trua assistance this year will be ineligible next year.

And just wanted to highlight, following the 2026 budget process, we have 16.1 million available this year and 15.1 available next year.

As of November 24th, we've served over 1,500 households.

The average amount of assistance is a little over 7600 for 4.9 months.

Most of the households we're serving are at or below 30% of the area median income and are female headed households, and we do see a higher percentage of BIPOC households served compared to the city's demographics.

With this program, the first I'll talk about is with Harvard's The People Lab.

Two of our providers, Brothers Redevelopment and Community Economic Defense Project.

This is a randomized controlled trial that began in January and is ongoing.

The purpose of the study is to examine whether Trua improves housing stability and reduces evictions and engagement with homelessness services.

We have several data sources we're using, including the Trua application, court eviction records, homelessness management information system, also known as HMIS, as well as follow-up surveys.

So I will say these are non-definitive research is ongoing as we continue to grow our sample size for this research project.

But per that uh interim analysis, initial results do suggest that Trua may reduce evictions and homelessness in three months following the household's initial application.

Reductions in homelessness uh for recipients appear to persist persist for at least six months.

However, we do see the effects on evictions fading over time.

Um, and true recipients were 83% like less likely to have HMIS enrollment for non-prevention services, which would indicate literal homelessness within three months and 78% less likely within six months.

The second research project is a pilot with Denver Public Schools.

So this is serving families with children who are enrolled in DPS.

Our provider for this is Jewish Family Service.

Our partners are with Denver Public Schools Family Connect Team and Social Impact Solutions.

Our research partner is Omni Institute Center for Social Investment.

We've also had other funders help support this pilot program.

And the process for this is referrals from DPS to Jewish family service to provide rental and utility assistance, wraparound case management, and emergency supports.

This research project is to examine whether Trua and case management prevent homelessness, a different definition of that here, which is the McKinney Vento definition.

We're also monitoring the long-term effects of anticipated benefits like housing stability, school attendance, and also considering the social return on investment for this research project.

And in terms of data sources, we have the true application, a survey time of enrollment, ongoing program and administrative data, DPS student data, and then six and 12 month check-ins.

As of the August interim analysis, again, research is ongoing.

63 families were enrolled from January to June.

That supported nearly 98 DPS students and 70 other children.

So lots of kiddos being served with this program.

We are now up to 89 families as of November 24th, and we'll be continuing this pilot and research project next year.

89% of the families being served were at or below 30% of the AMI, 40% self-reported experiencing homelessness within the last two years.

72% are utilizing at least one public benefit.

Most of those who were referred were in the early stages of the eviction process, so just received a rent demand.

And then some of the reasons that they were reaching out for services were employment challenges, and then child care and family caregiving responsibilities was second.

All of the households in the pilot have received rental and utility assistance with an average of 7,900.

These households are, we see a higher average cost per households because we're seeing lots of larger families and therefore higher rents for these families.

17 households received emergency financial assistance for things like vehicle related costs or health care and medical bills.

Most of the households are engaging in case management services, which is great, and then also supporting with food assistance, employment assistance, and transportation assistance.

Our future analyses will include information on those longer-term impacts.

Again, this interim analysis was from August.

So I won't read this success story to you all, but did want to include it.

It talks about a family who was not only able to be stabilized in their home, but also was able to set goals, saving goals in order to launch a small entrepreneurship venture.

And so just reminds us that it's not just about the housing, but there's more that comes once we're able to stabilize folks in their homes.

I also wanted to talk about the property tax relief program because it's fairly new to our team.

So this program provides a partial refund of property taxes paid or the equivalent in rent to Denver residents.

The program runs from May 1st to April 30th and is a rebate for the prior year.

We started administering this program as of May of this year.

It was previously administered by Denver Human Services.

Once we started administering, we did launch a new online application.

We contracted with two local nonprofits following a competitive procurement process.

We've conducted several outreach events to assist residents with applying, and then both our nonprofit providers are providing assistance, applying either over the phone or in person, and then host and DHS continue to answer phone calls for residents who have questions as we continue to help with the transition.

The current eligibility for this program, I did just want to make a note that we have some proposed changes that are being considered.

Recently went to council's budget and policy committee.

There's a slide in the appendix for what those proposed changes are, but the current eligibility criteria are homeowners with disabilities, homeowners who are 65 or older, and homeowners with children who are at or below 60% of the area median income, and then renters with disabilities and renters who are 65 and older, either 25% or 30% of the AMI, depending on household size.

As of November 24th, we'd served over 1,200 households.

59% of those were renters, 41% homeowners.

The average rebate amount for homeowners is over $1,400.

The average rebate for renters just under $1,000.

Most of the households being served are 65 or older, with disability being the second highest category.

And the application is still open at DenverGov.org property tax relief, and the phone numbers for our two providers, if folks need assistance applying, is there as well.

We have several.

So the first is Jewish family service for the DPS and Trua pilot.

We are adding seven months and $1,250,000.

We anticipate serving an additional 90 households next year.

We anticipate in 2026 serving 2,000 trua applicants and having over 21,000 total customer service contacts.

So that could be text, call, message.

They're serving folks in lots of different ways.

With this contract, we expect to serve 335 households with rental and utility assistance, as well as over 1,800 with stability services.

Those could be things like mediation, case management, housing relocation, those types of things.

Again, adding 12 months and 3,699, $685 to serve 600 households with rental and utility assistance and 2,000 with stability services.

A note on this contract and the one prior, although we're adding the same amount, you'll notice the contract totals are different, and with CDP having a larger amount to carry over, anticipate them being able to serve more households.

We anticipate serving over 1,600 households next year.

Contract with CEDP adding 12 months, $2,450,000 anticipate serving about $1,500 households next year.

This contract I haven't yet talked about, but this is our foreclosure financial assistance contract.

So this provides financial assistance to help homeowners with past due mortgage, HOA fines and fees, or any other kind of judgment lien that would jeopardize them losing their home.

For this contract, we're adding 12 months and 350,000, and we anticipate serving 37 households next year.

And then we also recently did a procurement for housing resource navigation and uh fair housing education and enforcement.

Um so East Colfax Community Collective was awarded a three-year contract totaling $538,234.

We anticipate they will serve $175 households per year.

Um and what this program is is providing kind of culturally competent technical assistance and language support to East Colfax residents who need emergency housing resources and other information.

Thank you.

Um, and then we also will have this contract coming forward, which was also awarded under the same procurement.

Uh this contract will offer housing resource navigation and uh fair housing education and enforcement.

That's the best presentation I've ever given.

We're both watching at home.

There is like applause coming from the room next door.

That's what we're all laughing about.

Um again, this will be a three-year contract for 538,234.

Um, and we anticipate serving 220 households per year.

So again, this will provide um the housing resource navigation, but also fair housing education and enforcement under this contract.

Um we have two other um providers who were awarded contracts under that RFP.

They don't require council action, but I did include some slides in the appendix if you're curious.

Um, those are with Denver Metro Fair Housing Center and Buku West.

With that, I'll take questions questions.

I also have my amazing colleagues, Ian and Becca here, who are the actual program managers managers for these programs.

So um, if there's questions I can't answer, they're they're also here to help.

Thank you so much.

I have been keeping you.

Um, and feel free to catch mine if you want to get in it, council members.

Uh, starting with council member Torres.

Thank you.

Uh, thanks, Melissa.

Um, just so I have um just some comparative numbers on your first true slide.

Um, you said 16.1 available in 2025, 15.1 available in 2026.

Those are the budgets for trua for each of those calendar years.

Correct.

Um, what's what's been the budget for um property tax relief?

Like, is it always had an underspend?

It has what's been allocated?

It has historically had an underspend.

It's been, and um sorry, please jump in if I get anything wrong, but um typically historically it's been funded around six million or so, um, and there has been underspend.

So we are going into next year with adding $4.9 million and striving to spend everything that's being budgeted.

So you next year it'll have a 10 million dollar budget.

And so a little bit of history here when the property tax relief program was set up originally, way back when before like Trua even existed.

Um, it was funded out of the general fund at six million dollars a year.

The Department of Finance had some serious concerns about expending all of those dollars, and so the way that they sort of made sure that that was measured was by not doing a great outreach job of letting people know that the program existed.

So historically, up until 2024, the program was funded at $6 million a year and was never fully expended.

So, you know, they would roll over dollars every year and sort of use those dollars.

Uh in 2024, council agreed to take a million and a half dollars out of that fund given that it had not been fully expended historically to put towards a migrant crisis.

That's right.

So uh now we're down to kind of four and a half million dollars a year.

Um, then in also in well, in early 2025, the program moved from um DHS to host, which is I think just a better fit all the way around and appreciate everybody's support on that.

Um so we don't have great numbers for this year because it's the first program year.

Um, the best estimates that hosts and they have worked really.

Thank you, Ian and Melissa, so appreciate you guys on this.

Um, they've worked really hard to create realistic estimates of what this should look like to fully expend over the course of um the program year, which is through April of 2026, right?

Um, and that's about it's gonna come to five million dollars a year.

So that is uh January through April and or January through uh March is the previous program year, and then April through December is the you know, quote quote unquote current program year, but adding those estimates together to not mess with the fact that we're on a calendar year budget and this is on a programmatic year budget, um, it's about five million dollars a year best estimate.

It is funded at 4.9 in 2026, which um I want to just give a huge shout out to hosts and to the Department of Finance on this because it was funded at a little bit less than that, and we went to them and said, please this is our sole opportunity to um really address anti-displacement for homeowners and the issue of ensuring the generational wealth is not lost um if someone loses their home and they acknowledge that and agreed to add an additional almost half million dollars to it.

So um that's the financial picture.

Did I miss anything there, Melissa?

Okay, that's what it looks like historically.

Thank you so much.

Um, on the utilization side, would it be possible to get just numbers of how many within our council districts are um receiving the property tax um relief program?

And we I'm I just want to know kind of how we compare um to other uh districts and maybe yeah, I mean I it's hard to say kind of where we could help with outreach.

We were I remember going door to door right as COVID hit and we had to reel it back.

So um that'd be great.

Yeah, I think our um our our data analyst has already created some maps for us because we're we're thinking ahead about outreach as well, so yeah.

Thank you.

Um, just a question on the case management for Trura recipients.

How long do they have case management for?

Becca, do you want to speak to that?

And introduce yourself first.

Hi, everyone, my name is Becca Channel, and I'm the program manager for the temporary rental and utility assistance program.

Um our case management is offered through the Denver Public Schools pilot program, and they are offered that case management for the duration that they're receiving rental assistance.

So, for example, if they receive two months of arrears, they would receive that two months and then could receive case management for four um months while they're receiving those additional four months of rental assistance on that month-by-month basis.

Um, we do have some limited case management that's offered through uh the general Trua program.

It's not as robust, it's pretty light touch case management.

Um, and that's really client-dependent and agency dependent, um, just based on needs of the households.

Okay.

The um slide I was looking at on what services were received, I think is slide 12.

Um, are those services received at the time of True application?

So they were already receiving food benefits, employment assistance, or are they services received because they're being case managed and they finally got connected to those things?

I see they're saying the food assistance, employment assistance, those things.

Yeah, that is um through this through this pilot that they're receiving that, okay.

Yep.

Um is there a way that you're tracking, I'm thinking about like the employment assistance, just trying to think about like um positioning folks better for not have not trying to come back to true for assistance again, right?

Um, is uh if you know 15% needed uh a job or a new job or something, we were able to meet that need in some way.

Like just wondering like per um metric or criteria how we were able to meet a particular need.

Yeah, we can uh discuss with Jewish Family Service.

I I know that they are uh very good about tracking the services they're offering and the outcomes, and because there will be check-ins with uh six months and 12 months um within this um research project.

We can definitely um provide see what can be provided.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Thanks, Becca.

Thanks, Benature.

Great, thank you.

Um, and Councilmember Sawyer is next.

Oh, thank you.

Um, thanks you guys, so appreciate this.

I just wanted to ask, um, so for council members, a little bit of history here, uh, the sort of dovetails with our um uh free legal to eviction legal defense.

Um, because if someone is under threat of eviction, it's not just about stabilizing them through trua, which is how we do that, but also you know, ensuring that there are other opportunities to um get all of the potential benefits that they can possibly qualify for and all the different things, and it's very confusing.

So, a couple of years ago we had set aside space in a courtroom where like mediation services were offered, which I really wish the state law would let us make that required, but it doesn't.

Anyone from state watching hint hint?

Um, and so I'm curious whether we are still doing that, whether we still have that sort of one-stop shop program where someone who is being evicted can receive legal free legal services, mediation, potentially mediation services, trua services, DHS support services, snap leap, etc.

Um, you know, and kind of all the all the things.

Are we still is that still going?

So we do still have the eviction clinic um on site on the first floor near the courtrooms.

Um we do offer their free eviction legal services, and then there is a trua kind of like case manager in that spot, so assistance with applying for rental assistance, getting information about other resources.

Um DHS was not able to staff a position for that any longer, so they're not there, but uh we are on site five days a week with eviction legal and uh true case management.

Awesome.

Is there at that location?

Is there um that's on the first floor of City and County Building, yeah?

It is okay, great.

Um, is there a like computer that has even just my friend Ben where people can?

They are providers, um, do have computers, and so they'll uh allow residents to use them if they've needed.

Okay, so there's helping them resource navigating.

Yeah, I know with like staffing, it's just so hard, but the resource navigation piece is like overwhelming and confusing and like a totally foreign language to most people, so it it's just like the spot where they I think need could use the most help, which we're not staffing right now, but through DHS, not through you guys.

So um, okay.

Well, it's good to know, and I think for us to know for future um budget planning that maybe we need to have a conversation about re refunding that position.

And I think space too, we're often limited with space.

Um, if we had more space, we could also have more staffing there in terms of the eviction legal providers and through a provider.

So um that's also kind of a limitation of the current space, but we're grateful to have any space at all near the near the courts.

Um, I'm just so excited that it is that it exists, right?

I mean, when we when I started here in 2019, none of this existed.

So this is a really big deal.

Yeah, great.

Thank you.

Thank you for helping.

Thank you.

Um I have Council Pro Tem next, and I forgot to welcome Council President, so just doing that randomly right now.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

I I just had a quick follow-up for the DPS pilot.

Um, is that is the 16 schools that says that there's a 16 school pilot?

Is it possible for us to get um which schools are being um targeted and is it a variety of elementary, middle school, and high school?

Can't remember off the top of my head, we will get you a list of school, but I know um we were primarily target primarily targeting elementary schools, but there I think there are some uh middle schools and maybe like a high school.

Um, but yeah, we were starting kind of with the elementary schools.

Okay, and I think it's really it's very cool.

Um, and a pilot, but wondering if we are collectoring if we are collecting similar data for the property tax relief um program as well.

I just think as long as there is a pilot for the true, I think for property tax release, that would be another interesting data point for us to look at as well.

In terms of uh DRUD collecting yourself.

I'm gonna be Ian, because you're seeing that this.

Okay.

Okay, yeah.

E-com program officer for uh Department of Housing Stability.

Um, that's something we could definitely do.

We're collecting things at a zip code and neighborhood level right now.

Um, so we can certainly see what our data analysts could do to like look into was it school districts specifically or um less so for school district, just more if um the property tax relief homes that are being that are receiving property tax relief have uh young people that are in Denver public schools, like do they have a school age child?

Gotcha.

Yes, I think we could at least know that for homeowner households because renters cannot qualify as having a dependent child in the household.

That's currently something we only collect for homeowner households, but I I think that we could um get you that data at like a zip coder or neighborhood level.

Absolutely.

Yeah, and we could work on that for 2026 if that is something you wanted to know for renter households, but it's not something we're currently collecting.

Okay, um, are the demographics that are being collected like would we know if they're like families with um school-age children or seniors?

I'm just trying to, I'm just wondering who's kind of part of that property tax release relief.

Um I think right now it's it's set up to only collect data on households with um uh dependents under 18 in the household.

So I don't know if it we would get to such a granular level to know that they are school age or middle age, middle school or high school aged.

Um, but it's something we could explore for the um for future program years, but not something currently collected now.

But even I think that's good just to know under age 18.

That gives you good ideas to families with young children, young children under the age of 18.

Um, and then do you collect if there are seniors?

Yes.

Senior households, okay.

Yeah, over 65.

Which will change in the future, but for now, the 65 or older.

Well, okay.

Now I got to ask what is it?

It'll just go down to 62 to be consistent with how it's definitely.

Which one of the changes that's coming, you get we'll be in committee February.

I think it's like the first Tuesday in February that we'll be in committee with those changes.

There you go.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Yeah, thank you.

That's actually everybody that I had in the queue, so I will pause in case anyone else wants to get in, and otherwise I have a few questions as well.

Because it's a lot of contracts.

All right, um, feel free to jump back after me too.

But um, so with regard to trua, I was curious if we could get um maybe as a follow-up from the meeting, a little more information about how much has gone out the door in terms of both dollars and numbers of households served just in this last part of the year, because we got a lot of that information leading up to the budget process.

Um, and so I'm wondering what it's looking like as we you know go through fall and winter.

Um, in order to compare it like month over month through that through that year.

Um and someone here may know that off the top of their head, but if not, that's probably a follow-up email.

And then I kind of was curious about whether um whether I noticed that there's a um criterion on the slide that says that folks who uh benefited from Trua in 2025 will be ineligible in 2026.

So just wondering overall if we've made any other changes to the Trua criteria, and if we could get the most updated list of what those criteria are or how we prioritize people when they apply um through the website, that would be really helpful too.

And I and I know that we asked again asked a lot about that during budget, but just having that most current version in one place would be amazing.

I think because we get we get people asking us all the time if they if they should apply, you know, yeah.

Um and then related to that um with respect to the property tax relief.

I'm curious for a renter what it looks like to qualify for that.

Um so if you could speak a little bit to yeah, just how someone qualifies.

There was a little bit of it on the slide, but yeah.

Um so renter households who apply are um it's it's a lot of things were the proposing to change, but it's a formula based um for both the renters and homeowners.

So it's based on um total rent paid for the prior year.

They they would have had to pay rent for the entire prior year.

So for this program year, rent would need to have been paid um January through December of 2024.

In the same property, is that part of the criteria?

Um it doesn't have to be in the same property, yeah, just 12 months of rent.

Yep, so they could um demonstrate that through a ledger or rent rental payments.

Um, and then um again, they need to be renters with disabilities or a renter who is 65 plus.

Um it doesn't need to be everyone in the home, but at least one of the people in the household, um, and then using the formula, we calculate kind of a difference between their actual income, the income, eligibility.

Should we explain this?

And that gives us the amount of the rebate that they receive.

Okay.

The reason I'm asking is just because I think for renters, this functions in some ways similarly to Trua.

Main difference or big difference being that these are people who have been successfully paying through to date, right?

But I'm curious, I guess.

I'm just trying to think through the overlaps between those two forms of relief a little bit.

Um and understanding that the intention here is just to make sure that renters can benefit in the same way that homeowners can.

I don't it doesn't seem like there is, but it would be interesting to study the renters who benefit from the property tax relief as well in the same way that we are, Trua, you know, um, because it's as it's actually more similar in terms of what we're trying to impact.

Yeah, Sawyer, you have thoughts on this.

Well, no, I just wanted to jump in and just uh remind you that one of the conversations that we had when we came to budget and policy was removing renters from the property tax relief, and that is going to be our proposal that you're gonna see on February 5th.

Okay.

Um it would be phased out over time.

So uh what is in the language right now is 2030.

It could certainly be longer than that if you guys want it to be.

Um, but just in terms of uh property tax relief and renters, um, at some point in the next few years that will be phased out in time.

Okay, yeah, it's I mean I I'm dancing around a little bit, but but now I feel like I can just say it, um, because I don't want to criticize any source of relief, but it seems like it makes more sense to consider renters altogether and consider it's not really the property tax that's the issue, right?

Like, that's what we that's that's what we thought too when we had these conversations.

I didn't know if that had made it through into the proposal, so it is gonna be.

You will see it in the final proposal.

Okay, well then you don't need to answer any more questions about that.

Um but thank you.

Um I would like to plus one the um district by district information that council member Torres asked for, and also the demographic information.

If we have it that council member Romero Campbell asked for both of those, I would love to see, and probably the whole committee would, so I'll just say um whatever we have, we would love to all see.

Um then let me just make sure I think I had one more question, and if not, we can move on.

Oh, I was just gonna say um to council member Torres's point, I my back of the envelope is that I it looks like maybe as of the numbers on the slide as far as how many households have been assisted by the property tax, we probably have like 1.41.5 million out the door, and we're like halfway through the program year.

So that kind of makes sense with new agency administrating.

Those numbers may be a little outdate too, but um that was that was what I saw when I did the math.

Okay, um, any final questions before we move on?

And we do have to vote on these two, but anyone else?

Okay, motion second.

Great.

Torres and Sawyer.

Um, does anyone need a voice vote?

Great.

Um thumbs up for all eight of these to go to the floor.

We love these programs.

Thank you guys so much.

All right, thank you so much.

Yeah, Melissa, I appreciate the um level of organization to get through all of that.

That many what else put it together.

It's a lot.

Yeah, exactly.

We can't compete with that other appall.

It's true.

Our room is not as packed, but it's more interesting.

Um, our next action item is also from host, um, but it will be from Jeff Kozitsky, and it is entitled miscellaneous shelter contracts.

Oh, and it may not, is this an action item or just a presentation?

Hold on.

Uh, there's one action item.

Great.

Thank you, Pauline.

Yeah, whenever you guys are settled, you can intro yourselves and council members.

I will start keeping a cue on this one.

You want to sign?

Polly Kyle, government affairs officer with host.

Jeff Kositsky, deputy Director and host.

And if our providers are watching all the Lakers, we do not view them as miscellaneous options.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, good afternoon, and uh thank you again for having us.

As you know, we've been trying to present contracts in groups uh based on categories.

Uh this is literally what it says the miscellaneous shelter categories that didn't fit into congregate, non-congregate or family uh shelters.

Um we will just um you've seen the slide many times.

This is how the shelter system fits into the um our spectrum of work.

Um, and again, we've seen this slide many times.

This is the various ways we hold our providers accountable, including regular quarterly reporting, site visits, annual monitoring, um, and just a reminder uh host has the ability to cancel contracts uh with appropriate notice at any time, and we are working on a um RFP schedule that we will issue to you every year so that we're bringing you three-year contracts on a more predictable um basis.

So we'll go ahead and jump right into the contracts.

Uh the first one is the Colorado Coalition for the Homelessness Bridge Housing Program.

Uh this is a uh is exactly what it sounds like.

It's a bridge program for people who are coming out of the homelessness response system, maybe they have been identified for housing or are coming out of uh institutional programs, uh possibly jail long-term care.

People who need a bridge from uh where they're currently are into um permanent housing.

Uh this is currently operated by the Colorado Coalition for the Homelessness, and it's at multiple sites that they operate.

Um in 2024, they spent 82 uh percent of the contract.

Uh the budget's increased slightly for 2025, and no increase in 2026.

Um, this is just a one-year contract, is where we will be RFPing this out for a three year uh in the future.

Um, most of the expenses are uh related to the operations of the sites.

They do have three and a half staff who are helping operate the program.

Um, on to the next slide.

Um last year, 2024 they served 175 clients with 72 percent of them um exiting to permanent housing, you know, much higher than we see in the other shelter based on the nature of the purpose of this program is to bridge people into housing.

Um move on to uh St.

Francis uh Day Shelter, which I'm sure you all are familiar with.

This is our uh largest and kind of premier day shelter program for people experiencing homelessness.

Um, this again is uh a one-year contract.

We're looking for a one-year, um, a one-year amendment, and this will eventually get RFP'd as well.

Um, it's uh increase over um 2025.

Uh we actually cut their hours back slightly in 2025 and are hoping to increase them back to where they were in 2026 and also provided a small um colour uh primary cost of this program is uh for staffing.

They have 15.2 individual FTEs working at the site, and then other direct operating costs.

Uh as I'm sure you all are aware.

Uh, they provide a really many important services to people experiencing homelessness, including general mail delivery, um, storage of personal property, smaller personal property, um, telephone access, clothing bank, shower facilities, um, also are offering case management there, uh particularly rapid resolution, and really working hard to divert people who you know show up maybe newly homeless to try to get them back to a place of safety.

Um, and in 2024, they serve 8,398 households.

Uh next contract is the off site uh storage that also offered by St.

Francis.

They provide 200 individuals with uh locked containers that can be used for personal storage.

Um, again, a one year amendment uh to this contract, it will be RFP'd out uh next year.

Um the contract amount in 2024 was 201 uh 804.

They spent most of that money down, increased uh slightly in 2025 and 2026 to deal with increased expenses and just 1.35 staff for that.

Um the slide just shows their hours of operations that were there available.

And last year they served 1,194 um unique households.

Uh moving on to the next uh contract is the shelter operations uh sorry, the safe house uh Denver, which is an emergency shelter for people households experiencing domestic violence.

Um host is a funder of this.

I'm sure they have multiple uh funding sources.

This is a relatively small uh general fund contract again.

One year amendment.

Um it's uh $65,000 uh of general fund covering primarily uh three quarters of uh FTE.

This is uh, as I'm sure you all are aware, 34 uh bed emergency shelter program, um confidential uh program that operates 24-7.

Um, again, working providing shelter and services to households experiencing domestic violence in 2024.

They served 123 clients, of course.

Hosts funded a tiny fraction of the cost of doing that, but that was our contribution to this important program.

We they do have some um federal funding through us as well that will be presented at a future date.

And last, and I believe this is the only contract uh which is uh um an action item for today, the others will be coming uh before council um shortly.

This is one of the three contracts that we have to provide meals at the micro um communities.

Uh there are two general fund contracts.

This is actually um state funding.

This is a contract through DOLA.

Um, there was some um additional resources that we had available through DOLA that we've uh are putting to this uh effort, it's only for six months uh tying to the state um award, and um this uh breaks out the cost of the meals nine dollars ninety-seven cents per meal for breakfast and lunch, 1147 for dinner.

Um that is it for your patience.

I hope I didn't go too fast or too slow.

I'm happy to take any questions.

That was awesome, and I don't actually have anyone in Q yet, but now I have Councilman Doris.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

The off-site storage, um, who owns the building?

Um is that paid for with the funding dollars?

The uh the site, yeah.

I do not know the answer to that question.

I'll have to get back to you on that.

Sure, that's fine.

Okay, if you I think it's their building, but I could be wrong.

Is it okay?

Okay, that'd be good in there.

Um, I don't know.

Okay, thank you.

Um then I have council protagonists.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, just real quick about the meals.

Are they are they warm meals, cold meals?

How are they served?

Um, I they are warm meals for dinner for sure, and they're uh delivered in um, you know, warming trays.

And um, so yeah, they are provided uh as hot meals to folks.

Um I know that uh just a side note and just something for consideration.

Uh it was a challenge, I think, at the family shelter.

Just the containers that they came in, you know, it just it creates a lot of waste for the recycle containers.

Some of them recyclable, some of them weren't, and just accumulated a lot.

I didn't know if there were options for like family style eating or serving or a vase style to be able to serve the things that you know that you want to eat, um, and maybe leave some of the things out that that um folks don't care for.

Yeah, no, thank you for that.

Um, we will be um RFPing these out uh over time and looking at different options as the micro communities wind down.

However, this particular contract um in for the most part we ask our um shelter operators to subcontract um on the meal provision but we can you know take a look at the you know different options around the the vendors that they're using and again it's a give and take you know sometimes it's easier just to pick it up and go to your place and it's you know there's different um food safety things that you have around it as well so just wondering thank you anything else okay cool anybody else before I ask if you all right um so just one thing super quickly to be clear we're voting on the work options for women today and then the other ones are coming through as soon okay just making sure of that um just a note for committee members then if you um if you have any follow-up questions on these before they could come through on consent you have a minute before they do um I wanted to go back to the St.

Francis Center slide that said the number of households are was it 8,000 it's Jeff I yeah sorry you can flip you can flip this faster as lists.

2,398.

It was yes that is staggering to me in that space.

I mean I knew they served a really high volume but that is a huge number of different households.

I know they have 500 people in there every day but to see it broken out by separate you know folks who come in throughout the year.

Have we had any ongoing conversations about a second day shelter at any point I remember that percolating up sometime in the last couple years but um given budgetary limitations uh we haven't uh been having that conversation but I think we recognize the need and also the need to have them you know dispersed in different in different neighborhoods um but yeah there's absolutely you know a need for um day services um and I think it's also important that we need to go back and look at demand over time as we've seen the number of unsheltered um the unsheltered uh numbers going down uh we should be seeing a reduction in demand but I would have to go back and and look into that.

That was exactly my next question was whether we've asked them how many households that is year over year because I remember checking with them about this informally and um interestingly they hadn't seen much of a drop even right after um a bunch of people came inside to you know Quebec Street and other areas um for all in mile high um which just tells us that more people are becoming homeless or coming to Denver or whatever that is but and people access the day shelter even if they're in nighttime shelter for sure.

So I I think you know even though most of our shelters are now 247 and providing services um you know none of us want to stay in our house all day long.

So I think you know it's a place to go out and to be in community with with other folks.

St.

Francis does a really great job of building community at that site and have lots of activities and speakers I've gone up quite a few times and been able just to speak speak with guests.

Not to mention mail and clothing and the other things showers.

Yeah and not all shelters are able to accommodate um you know everybody's needs so it it does provide an important uh an important service to the community and I know that there are folks who are housed that still go back and um you know sit in that sit in that space because it's familiar and comfortable for them and it's uh it's um you know a warm well-run um important service that they offer to people in Denver.

Do we know how many people get mail there?

No I do not know off the top of my head it is a very large number.

Yeah.

And frankly it would be helpful to have like another location for people be able to access mail because um I do recall a conversation with their director that um a big part of the volume that they have are are people coming in to um to get their mail.

Yeah and I think people will sometimes leave their mail there even if they're in another shelter where they theoretically could receive mail because they know that St.

Francis will be there.

So they just they treat it as a permanent mail address, and I and that makes perfect sense to me.

Um I just for the benefit of everyone in the committee that I know that and Jeff is I'm sure aware of this, but the there was um a meeting recently between St.

Francis and DHS talking about the fact that so much of the mail that people get there is benefits mail, and the volunteers at the day's shelter um sort that mail from other mail, like it's more urgent, and so um you know you put like anything that is coming from a government agency in a different folder so it doesn't get disposed of for a longer time.

So if it's got people's benefits in it or whatever, or you know, an important notification from Medicaid or Social Security or anything else, um, that it doesn't get lost um as quickly as other mail might have to be sort of turned over and recycled.

Um and so there's actually like a huge opportunity there because we're funding the um the day shelter, they're providing this huge service for people, and um there's a chance for us to really make sure that people aren't losing benefits um, you know, through that access point.

So I was really happy that DHS had a meeting to kind of talk about that.

Um, and that's I mean, they just that's the kind of thing that I think St.

Francis thinks about that um not every provider would, so council president.

Yeah, so I was a council aid when we opened up St.

Francis Center, and it was a lot of work.

Um we had to rezone it, we had to get a variance for the fence.

We had to work with the ballpark neighborhood, and at that time we had a different, we've since got rid of it, but we have a certain amount of um shelters in a certain amount of areas, so now it's the what is that?

Group living, yeah, the group living update.

So I would be interested to see if we've done an analysis, like a mapping analysis around Denver to see where could we even put a day shelter?

Because it would have to be somewhere um outside of that area because of the um the the how many now that we have group living, I think they're all categorized in different like I can't just caps, and then I can't remember exactly all the tiering, Tina Oxford would know this, but it would be interesting.

We before we even looked at funding or anything.

If we looked at the zoning, because I remember um that rezoning, I'll never forget sitting through, and I'll never forget sitting through that board of adjustment hearing for the eight-foot fence.

It was really um one of the hardest places that I I didn't realize rezoning could be so awful.

Um so just putting it out there as someone who had to live through that experience that it's really important to do that mapping exercise first before we even if we start looking at funding.

Yeah, um, and I funnily enough, there's some um folks who work on developing senior housing who have made that map.

So um we should find it and look at it again.

I've got it again.

Yeah, it's pretty fascinating.

Um, okay.

Well, thank you for that little frolic and detour.

If I could get a copy of that map, yes, that's what I'm gonna say.

I was like, we will send it to you.

We've made a map of where all our shelters are, it'd be good to like overlay that on top of be able to figure out the graphic.

And then talk to the zoning administrator.

Um, I don't know who's replacing Tina Asso Rad.

Me neither, I can't remember.

You know, off the top of my head now.

Yeah, we're all older now.

Um, yeah, yeah, the answer is nobody, nobody could.

Yeah, so so she helped me.

We she I work with I was before she wasn't even in that position.

She was in CPD, but it took like seven of us to figure out how we were even gonna open up that community center, and we classified it a community center for that reason.

Not a day shelter because a day shelter is a different use.

Yeah, right, okay.

Well, thank you for that.

Um I just noted they I mean they stretched that space beyond, you know, I mean we have, yeah.

So um, so I just was curious about that.

I know we're not exactly in the time when we're just building lots of new stuff, but um the other question I have also relates to the storage.

I know that this is um totally separate from the Lyle storage contract, um, which I think still lives with DDPHE, is that right?

To your knowledge, if you know, if you don't, it's okay, but the no, I do not know.

Okay, okay.

Um I've just been curious about that because the way that St.

Francis manages um these lockers, I think works a lot better for people than the way we've traditionally managed the the Lyell storage facility.

Um, and I just haven't heard an update on that.

And so the fact that you guys don't know where it is kind of.

No, actually, I'm sorry, it it's uh managed by Dottie.

Dottie, yeah, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, well, that reminds me to ask them about that.

Um, and with that, do I have a motion and a second for the work options for women?

Alvadra, seconded by Sawyer, third advice Taurus.

Anybody need a voice button?

Fourth fit.

Yeah, we're all good.

Thumbs up to the floor.

Send all you're on this committee.

She's respected.

Can I get a thumbs up for work options for women?

That's all we can do.

Who's telling them?

Can I saying hi, my friends.

Are you proud of me for knowing who's on my committee?

Thank you guys.

We're gonna be more good.

Good miscellaneous.

We'll see you next time.

All right, and then switching gears and agencies.

Um, we have a presentation on a landmark designation for 1555 Grant Street.

Um, which I believe just went through the landmark commission.

Yes, about five minutes ago.

About five minutes ago.

Look at us.

Yeah, I just got it.

I think we just got it.

Good thing we weren't running any earlier with our presentations.

I know I've never had like a committee.

How did that happen?

There was an error in signposting, and so to keep this schedule that it needs to be designated this year for tax purposes.

So interesting.

Yeah.

So here we are.

Yeah.

All right.

Feel free to when you're settled, introduce yourself and start your science.

No rush.

Okay.

Um, I'm Kara Hahn.

I'm the landmark planning and regulatory supervisor with community planning and development.

Um, and I just wanted to know it's Jeff Brassell who is replacing Tina.

Oh, Jeff.

Oh, Razzle.

Yeah.

Yeah, he was just hired like a month or so ago, something like that, starting a month or so ago.

Okay, so we are here on the 1555 North Grant Street designation application.

It's located in Council District 10 in the North Capitol Hill neighborhood, um, with CMX 12 for its zoning.

However, most of the building, the buildings are one and two-story buildings.

Um, the owners of this are the Knights of Columbus, District 539, and they are the ones who are bringing forth this designation application.

Uh, so this proposed boundary is for the entire parcel that has been historically associated with the ownership of the Knights of Columbus.

So I want to go over a little bit of the designation criteria for you guys to look at, um, and then we'll go over each one in specific.

So um, who can apply for designations within Denver?

It is typically a community-driven process.

In this instance, it is coming from the property owners, the Knights of Columbus.

Uh, so per the landmark ordinance, um, a property um must maintain its integrity, be more than 30 years of age, or exceptionally important, meet at least three of ten criteria, and the LPC, which just voted, had to consider the historic context of the designation application and of the structure itself.

For this particular designation, so it has to meet three out of ten, it meets four out of ten.

Um, but before you go forward with talking about the criteria, I wanted to give you guys a little bit of information on its historic context and its site development plan.

If you guys can see my mouse, yes.

Okay, so um, looking right to left, um, this is the property in 1904.

It's the historic Fletcher Mansion with their um car or with their barn and carriage house.

Uh, then in, and so it was a residential structure.

Um, by 1929, it had been evolved.

It's owned by the Knights of Columbus, they have connected the carriage barn, redone it into an event hall, and connected it to the mansion.

And then this is its current configuration today that reflects post-war changes, where they demolished the mansion and created a parking lot, and then built um a 1963 hall.

This is an image of this about 1928-29.

So I just wanted to kind of set the stage of the changes for this property over time.

Um, so uh it is significant under criterion B as put forth in the application for its direct and substantial association with a groups of persons who had influenced on society, the Knights of Columbus, specifically this, the ones that own this District 539.

The property served the Catholic community and the general public.

It's located about a block away from the Cathedral of Immaculate Conception and a block or two off from the Capitol.

Um so it was used by both Catholics in Denver, the greater Catholic community, as well as the general public.

Here's just a couple of articles that show different groups that were using it over time.

It was used by the fraternal organization, it was used for conferences and for members of the Greater Denver Society.

Probably the thing that best exemplifies what it is significant for, what it was used for, or its best use, was in 19, the 1928 event hall was used during World War II.

The Knights of Columbus opened up the space, they hosted and ran basically they became an official USO organization, as well as the national Catholic community.

About a half a million service men and women used the space from about 41 to 45, mainly people who were at the Lowery Air Force Base.

But this is probably the best example of its use within society and within its community that most people recognize as like just basically donating it for that use for so that there could be space for socialization for service members.

Post war, there was a large population growth, a large growth of Catholics within the community.

There was also a nationwide increase in fraternal orders, partially because as people were returning from the war, it was a way for camaraderie and a way for the men to socialize in a different space.

And so fraternal orders often served that need for them.

And so this District 539 needed more space.

They felt like the mansion that had been here was kind of falling down and not in the greatest maintenance.

So they, much like everything else in the downtown area, it was considered blight.

And so they tore down the mansion, put in a parking lot, and then built a 1963 structure here, which was also an event hall.

They now use and have used this parking for the Catholic community that comes into the area.

It's also one of their primary sources of income from renting it out.

And so they are putting forth in this application that the parking lot, the 1928, and the 1963 application are all contributing features of this.

And so I never heard of a parking lot.

It has been found to be historically significant by the staff and the landmark preservation commission, but is a unique thing that we have never seen come forward before.

So we thought that might be a point of discussion.

But it is so.

I think we're getting the folks from the LPC hearing moving right over here.

For the mid-century modern architectural style for its clean lines, its simple flat roof, the smooth exterior, the lack of embellishments, as well as the vertical windows.

And so it is reflective and embodies the distinctive architectural style of the mid-century modern.

That particular, the 1963 event hall, is also the significant example of the work of a recognized architect.

John F.

Milan is a recognized architect.

He has over 700 design project projects with a lot of varied work, single-family, multi-unit retail shopping motels, warehouses, but he did have a strong relationship with the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, which expands far beyond Denver.

And he designed numerous parishes and churches for the archdiocese.

This event hall is a unique and significant example of his work.

It used pre-stressed double T concrete members for, so concrete used for the floor, the ceiling, and the roof.

This is really ubiquitous today and is used everywhere.

But this was really early usage nationwide.

It's likely the first in Denver to be built in this way.

And so it really's a significant example of his work because of this unique architectural design.

And so it makes a significant example of his work.

And it also, under criterion E, contains elements of design, engineering materials or craftsmanship, which represents a significant innovation.

So post-war, the materials weren't available.

And so there were material shortages.

So you have contractors and builders looking at different options.

At the same time, you have the interstate development and they need concrete for that.

So you were seeing kind of a mix of these, the need for concrete for interstates and builders trying to find new ways to use different materials.

They melded together, and they came up with pre-stressed concrete double T framing members, which you can see on here.

It was cutting edge to design this in the 1962-63 era into a building rather than just using it for roads.

It's the pearl mutters, they are the ones who did the concrete here in Denver, and they are the ones who came up with this.

And so the first known building to use this was in 1961 in Florida, and so to have Milan doing this in 1962 and designing it and then constructing it in 63, is a significant innovation.

This is a criteria that's almost never used because it has to be such a significant innovation.

And so when you look at this building, you wouldn't necessarily know that, but when you do the research and really look at how it's constructed, the application puts forward and LPC concurred that this is a significant innovation.

They have requested that we add a couple more photos to the designation application to further show those examples, but they did agree that this was a significant innovation.

So if a property meets a minimum of three, in this case four out of the ten criteria, we also then look at its integrity.

And this is its historic integrity, not its structural integrity.

There are seven aspects of integrity that you look at, but really the way I kind of explain it to community members is would a prior resident recognize the property today.

Does it look like what it used to look like?

So here are some examples of other properties.

And in this case, it does look like what it used to look like, at least what it looked like in 1928 and then in 1963 with the new edition.

There have been some minimal changes.

Can't tell it as well in this image, but these are all glass block.

There was a porch that was added to the 1963 edition to do some outside space, but overall the property retains good integrity and looked like what it used to look like.

The landmark preservation commission has considered the historic context.

The historic context is sort of the back half of the designation application.

It talks about the history of the Knights of Columbus, the evolution of the property, the changes to the neighborhood, and the development of car culture and the need for parking lots in the mid-1960s.

The period of significance, which is the time period for which something is important, is from 1928 when they made the changes to the event hall till 1982, which is the hundred-year anniversary of Council 539.

And so it reflects the time of most usage of the building, reflects the social and cultural influence in Denver, and looks at the changes over time.

This is a historic photograph of the building that was torn down and then the event hall.

This is the carriage house that was eventually redone into the event hall.

So at the time of sending you guys the packet and information, we had two public comments in support from Councilman Hines as well as Historic Denver.

Over the weekend, we received another letter of support from the neighbors for Greater Capitol Hill.

So they were sending a letter of support as well.

It came in this weekend.

Um, and so with that, um, landmark staff and the landmark preservation commission um have found that it it meets the criteria of being over 30 years of age, of meeting um four of the criteria of retaining its integrity, and that the LPC considered its historic context.

So we are recommending that this is forwarded to um the full council for review.

Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, I have a few of us in Qarting with Council Member Sawyer.

Thank you.

Um, okay, so you you got it.

I am very concerned about the parking lot.

Um was there any discussion?

That is ridiculous.

Um, so I need to understand kind of two things.

The first one is specific to the parking lot.

What are the pieces of the parking lot that qualify under the criteria?

So that's number one.

And then number two, was there any discussion with the applicants about uh excluding the parking lot from the application?

I I mean I I certainly understand, like they use it, it's a revenue generator for them.

Great.

Like it's private property, they can do what they want with it.

That doesn't mean we need to designate a parking lot historic, which then requires that it remain historic and a parking lot forevermore.

Um, very, very uncomfortable.

So those are my two.

I'll start with your second question first.

We had extensive conversations with the Knights of Columbus.

Myself, other staff members really wanted to understand, really talked about what it means to be designated.

They very very strongly want it designated as part of this property.

Um, they are here if you have questions.

I can I can answer what they have told me.

Um, and I don't know if you want to bring in public comment, that's just a um there is there are tax implications, they want to use it as a parking lot.

It's important to the community, it's important to have parking spaces when people come from out of town and come to Denver because of its central location.

So they want to keep it in that use.

Um, however, because it's zoned for CMX 12 or 12 units in the downtown and in the design overlay one, um, they're taxed as if you could put a 12-story building on that.

They don't want it to be, they want it to maintain this for their history, and so that is why they wanted the application that way.

Um, I would not necessarily say it is great urban planning to recognize this history, but it is historically significant in that it reflects the changes in time where you went through in the post-war area of urban renewal and turning buildings into parking lots.

It is not a great history, but it is our history, and so it does meet the criteria as found by staff and the commission.

I understand your hesitancy and have had long thoughts about this, and we thought this would be a question.

Um, so that is our interpretation of that.

I understand if that everyone that may not be, but does that answer your question as to why and where it is?

I'm happy to further elaborate or to I really appreciate that.

Um, I'm just gonna ask you a question that is not quasi-judicial, correct?

No, the historic hearing.

Okay, great.

Um fantastic.

Just wanted to make sure I was staying in the right lane here.

So since it's not quasi-judicial, we can have a conversation.

So um I'm gonna ask you, you guys are the applicants, right?

Yeah, um, could you come and explain to me a little bit more about why you want to designate the parking lot historically?

So we can just come to the mic here so that people online can hear you also, and then if you can just introduce yourself, yeah.

So, Sean Spee, I am a uh member of the uh home of Denver that is the applicant here, right?

Um board member as well.

So the reason right for requesting that the parking lot also be included in the designation.

Not only was that also that space a part of where the tents were there for the soldiers as they were coming home from World War One, right?

That in that area, um that uh parking lot, as you mentioned, uh, and as Kara uh explained, is the revenue generator in order for us to be able to continue to exist, right?

And and to continue to restore the building, to continue to repair, uh without it, we can't exist.

We just can't.

Um, that was the only way, right?

Because we're we're a non-profit.

Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to I want to clarify you, it's private property.

You could keep that a parking lot without having to designate it historic.

So, because it's your property.

So, that's the issue.

I explain because I there because that's not an issue.

Right.

So, in dealing with the assessor's office about three years ago, and we've been uh working on this application for about three years with Carol, right?

Um, in dealing with the assessor's office, it was explained to us that because we generate revenue from that uh uh parking lot, right?

It is taxed more and differently to the tune of about $90,000 a year, right?

We generate about a hundred and twenty thousand, I think a year from the parking lot and the parking.

So everything that we uh raise goes to the taxes right now.

So as soon as as we can designate that parking lot as historic, drops the value, right?

With the assessor's office, so goes the logic, right?

And then we're able to not necessarily pay the 90,000 to uh the in property tax, right?

And we can put it towards the building and continue to restore it.

Okay.

Uh is uh if yes, if you would like to, please just come up to the microphone so that people online can hear you and introduce yourself.

Uh my name is Tom Miles.

I'm also on the board with uh Sean.

Uh do you need my address?

No.

Okay.

Um part of this also was that we didn't want what happened to Holy Ghost Church downtown up.

You know, that there's it's the church and there's a giant high rise next to it.

And what we didn't want was for that land to start to usurp that space that we have to a point where somebody developer would come by and go, we'll we'll just work on getting this landmark overturned so we can scrape that later.

The goal was to kind of keep that property.

We can build up to the top of this the size of the building now as it is.

So we wanted to build a smaller structures or office structures or other things, but it would still be low profile and it wouldn't overcome the building itself.

So part of it was protectionist too on our part to keep that space low and not have it zoned as the 12-story building.

So part of it was revenue generating, but also to give us opportunities later if we wanted to sell that part of it or or develop it to add more office space or whatever it is to bring it up to the size of the building.

I think that was I was told by the architecture committee that you can't ever develop past the size of the highest point on our building now.

Right.

And so we were good with that.

We wanted to keep it low profile so that that building stays the center point of that space, if that makes sense.

Because the buildings around there are going up, right?

There's uh the city building across the streets being demolished.

Um they just demolished the building corner to us and it's already up.

So we're already kind of in a pocket as it is, and I we didn't want there to be there to be another big building literally next to it going up.

I really appreciate that.

I think that's a lot more compelling than money.

Um, but I I guess I'm still a little bit confused because I mean, we have three photos here of um 1909, 1929 and 2025, right?

And you guys have done significant things over the last hundred years on that on that space, like, so I mean, you demolished a historic structure on the space.

Well, that was the and that was the time, the period.

I mean, if you look around historically, those buildings were being out of favor at that time if people were doing modern buildings, right?

If I may, um, so in in those years, right, over half a million servicemen and women were in that building, right?

So it it was worn out in the in the late 1950s.

Uh we were told they needed a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in order to continue to to restore that, right?

And so the the alternative was to tear it down and and to uh create the um the the hull out of what was left of the carriage house.

Okay, and we're trying to prevent that from happening more.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Because what's to say that doesn't decide to put something bigger there or scrape that other piece and keep the older bark or just you know, so I'm I really appreciate that.

I I am I'm just I am really struggling with this one.

I'm I I'm madam chair.

I will I think this application is complete, and I think that it should go in front of the full council.

So if it's motioned to go forward, I will support that, but I'm not do not find it compelling.

I'm really have some concerns about the parking lot.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um next thing queue.

I have council member Lewis.

Um so um and I have some questions.

So can you tell me how many build buildings in the early 1960s are within this style that has been presented today?

Uh we don't have a survey that says how many there are of that particular style.

Um there are not many that are designated.

Um a handful is what I would say were are designated, if that so it it's it's not necessarily a super rare style, um, but we are seeing a lot of these demolished.

We see um every demolition that comes in citywide, so we do see some of these demolished, but we don't have maybe a little to five that are designated for for sort of the mid-century modern architectural style in a more commercial versus a residential.

Okay, thank you.

I might get back into the queue.

Okay, um I have council president next in queue.

Um, so uh I've worked on a lot of uh properties for historic preservation because um in Northwest Denver, the Highland neighborhood was actually established before Denver, and so we Denver annexed Highland, and so we have a lot of older properties.

I so my concern is the precedent that it sets of having you all designate a parking lot as historic, because what that does is in the future it sets the groundwork that a city council approved a designation for a parking lot.

A parking lot is not a historic feature, a parking lot is not built, it's asphalt, right?

And so a parking when we when I think of a historic property, I worked on um designating a park park historic in my council district, and when I looked at the whole entire park, I wanted to designate all of it, and there's certain structures within the park that have significance.

There has to be a way for us to update the park and put grass, it has to be a way to update the park and put playground, and so I have a real concern with the fact that we are designating empty space as historic.

So I don't quite understand how talk to me.

I'm gonna have to trust and verify.

How does this change it on the assessor's list?

I've never heard that before.

I know you can get tax credits, it does not change the assessed values on the assessors' list.

So, how does this change the assessed value on the assessors list?

Because the way that the city assessor assesses property is it looks at your property and then it looks at market somewhere else and they assess each other.

You can't change the zoning by a landmark structure.

You can with with this, like the height, and because you could have a guidance within that box, you cannot change the designation.

So on the corner of 46th in Tennyson, when we designated the old Olinger mortuary into a preserv historic preservation, I did not change what the assessor said on the land.

So what you mean, I'm not understanding.

So can you say it in a different way because it's not adding up to your assessed land?

Because you're not going to be able to change that.

Right.

So uh Sarah just uh reminded me, we're giving up the development rights, and so uh when you think of the parcels and how they are taxed by the assessors, and I talk to the assessor, they're taxed as as Tom mentioned, as though you could build a 12-story building on there.

If you if you say that no, forever, it cannot be built, nothing can be built there, then suddenly they're taxing you at a much lower rate, and only ever ever be used as a parking lot, right?

And and the entire property, the 12 or so 10 parcels, I think originally when we purchased them in 1919, have been forever taxed, right?

Um, property tax, and and it's just continue to go up.

So I and you're you're taking development rights up to 12 stories, and you're bringing down the development rights to have open space.

Correct, but you're making it into a parking lot, so you two are gonna die because everyone died.

Yes, and 20 generations from now, people are gonna come and say, why did they designate a parking lot?

We can't do anything to a parking lot, so why are you designating a parking lot?

I can't, for the life of me, we zoning is codified for generations, like the to undo a historic designation is super hard.

Why would you do that to yourself for the next five generations?

So I always think of land use is seven generations.

Why would you do that to the next seven generations of owners like yourself?

What if they need something?

What if they want to turn it into a park?

What if they want to turn it into something they're not going to be able to?

Because if if you all don't grant this, then we're gone.

And we'll be applying for a demolition permit because we have to have the revenue from the parking lot in order to afford the the structure itself.

I mean, and it is it is financial to be able to do that.

Something in because of a financial state that you all are right now, forever.

Like, why would you do that?

I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't vote for something where you're making a generational land use decision and parking lot.

Like I said before, so that it doesn't turn into where the Holy Ghost is, right?

We don't want it to ever mean in seven generations, I would love that for it to still be that that little block to not have anything going else on it.

The amount of space that we're talking about designating is small, right?

It's not much, not much more than having like five extra parking spaces for regular house from the size of the building.

If you look at the parking space compared to the building, it's not massive.

So you couldn't do a whole lot on there without really really doing a lot of massive damage to that space.

So like I said before, I mean, as opposed to allowing that, if we take that away from it completely, then down the road, somebody could, you're right, seven in two generations once we're gone, could develop all the way around that thing and eventually maybe say it's a hardship.

There's different rules that change, laws change over seven generations as well.

And so if it gets to a point where we don't protect that space, then with that building as it is, even if it's landmark status, somebody down the road in two generations could say, well, we're gonna we want to put this big high rise here, nobody cares about this building anymore.

Let's just work on getting this overturned and we could just take care of it all at one time.

So our concern is that if we don't tie them together, then we're not protecting that land itself from development, eventually taking it over.

But I don't I I have gotten my I was a bride made, I was made of honor at Holy Ghost.

I don't think Holy Ghost is bad.

I personally think actually Holy Ghost is actually a really nice land use.

But it's got a difference.

Sorry, I just want to caution just totally respectfully, but um please let the council member finish your question before you start answering it.

It's a really nice space and it's urban.

We're in the urban core, you're in downtown Denver.

I cannot say yes to a landmark preservation that designates a parking lot.

Like I did it so on 46th in Tennyson, you should drive by there.

I live right by there.

They built around the chapel.

Yes, they did.

Because we need we are in a housing crisis.

So my community said in 2015 that the chapel was important.

I said, let's designate the chapel.

They wanted to designate the parking lot.

I said, I'm not designating a parking lot.

There's no feasible way I could designate a parking lot.

We've never designated a parking lot.

So you're asking us at a time right now when we're in affordable housing crisis to designate a parking lot when you all could actually come up with a different realm and come up with a different configuration.

Because you're telling me I I just don't believe in absolute that if this doesn't happen, this will be done.

In your experience right now, it feels that way because taxes are really high and things, and I'm sure things are you're probably it's not renting out as much as it was, and we're not having a war and we're not having veterans back, and we're living in a different time.

I'm just telling you, do you understand what you're you're in a predicament?

Do you understand that you're putting us into a bit by saying we're gonna be the first city council to landmark parking lot?

Like, do you really like go out into community?

Like if you were in San Francisco and you walk by a place and you were like, that parking lot is landmark.

If you're in Philadelphia, that landmark is parking lot, that parking lot is landmarked.

Washington DC, there's wars that happen there, and they don't have parking lots that are landmarked.

They don't.

Yeah, they don't.

But I would go ahead.

Do they have buildings that have parking lots that are landmarked though?

Are there any?

No, you don't you don't landmark the parking lot, you landmark the building.

Tom's diner.

We wanted to landmark the building.

I could give you like five hundred examples.

My predecessor was really about landmarks.

Like you have no idea how many like applications I've written as a council aid, you don't include the parking lot.

Okay, like you just don't.

I've never seen an application that's included the parking lot, and I've been at the city since 2013.

Okay, and I've worked on like tons of, so I have major concerns about this, and I want you all to get the designation, but I don't I can't vote for a designation that includes a parking lot.

And I'm like one of the biggest advocates for preservation using tax credits and being creative because it's designating a parking lot.

Yeah, okay, mentor.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, and just a reminder, we council members can call people up to the mic to answer questions, but that's the purpose.

It's not a public hearing, so it's a QA.

Um, so we may ask you all to come up and answer specific questions that we have, but that's um that's what we're doing here because we haven't invited the entire public to be here to be able to speak.

So um, just so there's that understanding.

Um, I have Councilmember Alvedrez in the queue next.

Thank you so much, madam chair.

Um, I really appreciate the questions.

Um, I am looking at the Google maps view, and it does seem like you wouldn't be able to see the building if there was development in this space.

So this almost seems like also kind of a view plane issue.

Um, and I don't think that would be a good tool.

View plane, it seems like this could be the right tool, but I'm curious when a parking lot is designated.

What kind of restrictions does that put on the parking lot?

Does that mean like you have to use the exact same colors of striping?

What does that mean exactly?

We haven't done this in the past, so this would be um a new a new thing.

Um we do allow replacement materials, we do not regulate color, we don't really regulate paint color.

Um, so if they wanted to, you know, um redo the park, you know, like re-asphalt the parking lot, put new striping, that kind of thing.

Um, if it requires a permit, we would review it.

Uh, but um we don't regulate color so they could paint it whatever they wanted to paint that it would go through design review if the work they were doing on it required a building or zoning permit.

Uh they could do other things that you know don't require permits and we would not review it, but that's just like every other landmark.

Um, when I was I just did some Google searching, and it looks like the Ealich Gardens Theater site included parking open areas within the parcel.

Um, would that be similar to this?

Yeah, so there's there's other buildings that include parking.

Like there's other landmark buildings that include parking, there's other historic districts that include parking.

It's just hasn't been as exclusively discussed as it is in this particular application.

So we have lots of other like parking areas related to other buildings, you know, a bed and breakfast may be required to have some parking.

So having parking in a landmark is not a new thing.

Um, calling it out like this is is something that is a little more novel.

Okay, and I do see other cities have also done things like this, like Chicago landmark designated the motor club building.

Um, it's auto for court and parking area because of the same thing reflecting early car culture.

And so I do think parking lots could go away, and this could be something that does tie to the building and to the viewplane and to be able to appreciate the building as it is.

And I do think there is historical significance to setting up tents there and it being part of the community space.

So I think that I personally can see some use in designating this.

Yeah, so that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, committee chair.

Thank you.

Let me see who I have next.

Councilmember Torres.

Thank you.

Um, Kara would we have done other I'm looking just even at the landmark um locations in my district and how that landmark has affected non-building parts of that land.

So how do we treat uh like say DPS wanted to build an extension at West High School into one of their parking lots?

How do we treat that request?

Yeah, so so DPS is its own like kind of thing.

But but I can use it for an example of like say it wasn't a school, yeah at public school.

Um, so say they want to do, you know, we do additions on like a regular basis.

We see a lot of different additions.

Um we look at any changes to the property when you look at what is a contributing feature and a non-contributing feature.

Things that make it historic, things that are not historic.

So in most spaces at like West High School, they wanted to do an addition, you're gonna use it and you're gonna put it in the parking lot.

It's kind of you know, off to the side or behind.

Um, that would be something that would just be okay.

Yeah, that if it meets the rest of our um design guidelines, that would be appropriate and we would approve it.

Um, in this case, because the parking lot is being called out as contributing as a parking lot, as a parking lot, the reuse of that into something else or a new building would be um much more difficult.

So you couldn't even build like say they really wanted to like be restorative and rebuild the home, the house, um, as it might have been in the past, you probably couldn't even do that.

No, and I don't want to be intirely speculative, um, but if you were looking at the north side of the property, um, maybe they could build something there, they could expand on something if they wanted to expand the 1928 event hall.

But particularly in front of the buildings, that has always been more of an open space, whether it was grass or whether it was parking.

That area has always been sort of an open space.

So I don't foresee them the commission approving anything going there.

They maybe would do something small on the side, but again, it's up to the landmark preservation commission, but because it is a contributing feature, um, that would be, you know, a very complicating factor, and we've discussed with them that like this is basically probably gonna stay a parking lot or a flat surface.

Um, it could be, you know, it wouldn't necessarily have to be asphalt, but it would be a flat surface for the future.

It's okay, and let me ask the the team really quickly.

Um what else did you pursue?

Um, were there any discussions about a different zoning designation in order for it to be capped at three to five stories or something like that that that you know, you're the owner, you're asking for that.

Is that even was that a conversation at all with community planning?

Yeah, so uh of course we're volunteers and we do what we can, right?

So I would say about three, four years ago, there was a conversation with the assessor's office in that direction, right?

Well, what if we went a different route?

Why do we have to be um zoned as if we have a 12, we could have a 12-story building on our property, and they said, well, it it it just is what it is.

Um, but it was my understanding that there was no way that they would rezone that property because of where it is and because of the value of it into something different.

Um I I mean there isn't anything else around there that is a lower um significantly lower designation.

There is, I think an eight-story, then you start to get into like some of the downtown um zoning, uh, but you're not far off from some of the excuse me, um zone districts that I'm less familiar with like GRO3, things like that, um, are not too far away uh from this location.

I just I just feel like were all of the options pursued before um asking council to make a parking lot permanent, like evermore, right?

Um, and because it doesn't even sound like converting it to a flat surface that isn't a parking lot, isn't the goal.

Um, it is to keep it as a revenue uh generating parking lot.

And and who knew, you know, if a 12-story building could bring you similar revenue, right?

I mean, like just thinking in the future.

I also feel like the Holy Ghost example is an incredible meld of old and modern in my eyes when I think of downtown, um, all the time when I think about kind of that space and and how neighbors found a way to be neighbors with each other, even kind of with the different building options that they've got.

Um I think the struggle that we're having around this is um is everything that we've said, especially if we didn't pursue um a rezoning of that location, or to be something other than a 12-story and text at that at that kind of location.

I do know that they that assessed value does change with landmark.

We've been encouraging a particular location in my district to be landmarked, um uh with the kind of knowledge that that would likely change their assessment.

But there's a building there that would have to stay there, um, as opposed to this being no building and no building could ever kind of go there.

Um, I think that's the difficulty um that we're struggling with.

Of course.

Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

I have council for Tumble Barr Campbell next.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, I had a similar line of thought as councilwoman uh Torres, of just what additional options had been pursued for that um for that space.

Um so I'm just trying to think of in the district um in my district there are large portions that have deeded property or deeded land um for use in is this deeded or is this I'm just not as familiar with um the downtown area, but it is that property have a deed on it?

Like for use.

So in a great on a lot of the portions in um Denver Tech Center, um, which is the southern portion of my district, um the buildings are on deeded property in use, so and on top of that you have your um zoning on top of that.

So just wondering is the property have dating in there?

Clerk and recorder or do you know?

I should ask.

That's private, not private, yeah.

Because usually a deed will also say what the property could be used for.

So even use that deed would be from 1919, and we'd have to go dig it up to see.

Well, but the reason I'm asking is is because in, and I'm just speaking specific to my district, there are certain uses on that um they can only be used on, and I doubt that at that time they were probably designated for parking lot, but that might be another pathway to look at if also you were to pursue a different zoning um for that particular plot of land for the parking lot.

Okay.

Absolutely, again, it's just it's a it's another, it's just another thought.

I am I see your conundrum with where you are going um and wanting to create it as a historic designation to be able to lower the taxes to be able to pay for the renovations.

I mean, it is it it seems like quite a conundrum to be in right now to be able to make that preservation.

My question was around if anyone had looked into if that property had been deeded for specific use.

We have not.

Because if it is and was fitting, I'm looking to you now, if it is and was fitting into um car culture and where it, you know, and how it was designated, that might also be another pathway.

I don't know where that falls out or if the land is indeed having any.

Yeah, that isn't any research we have done on this property.

We haven't actually done it on any recently that I'm aware of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um I am next in the queue.

Um, and I want to sort of preface my questions or comments by saying that this is not personal or a commentary on the nights.

Um, I've been on many volunteer nonprofit boards, and it's a really hard time to be doing that.

We have nonprofits all over the city that are in dire, dire straits.

Um, and so that I mean, I just in an incredibly heartfelt way, I understand why if this is something that was mentioned by the assessor to you as an option, why you all would have pursued it out of your duties to your organization.

Um that said, I I um I want us to really be careful um as committee members, and if and when this gets to the floor, because we have very clear um criteria for landmark designation, right?

It um for something to be a designated landmark, it has to meet three out of the 10 on those slides that I'm looking at, and I have to say I'm not exactly sure what the landmark commission considered because I'm guessing you didn't have time to edit the slides in the five minutes between the vote and um and when you got here.

Um, but the parking lot itself is only mentioned under one of the criteria, um and it's mentioned with reference to this idea that post-war car culture and the idea of um the development of parking lots is something that we should historically preserve.

And I'm just gonna say I reject that.

I do not think that that is a historical um something that is of such historical significance that if we don't designate it as a landmark, we will lose it.

We have parking lots, we have car culture, it's continued through to this day.

Um I think we would probably be national laughing stocks if we consider that a criteria for a landmark designation.

I personally will not.

So, from my point of view, that knocks the parking lot out of any of the 10 criteria, and it already was only mentioned under one of them.

And the difference, as Councilmember Torres's line of questioning pointed out, is that if the parking lot itself is a part of the reason for the designation that we designate the entire parcel, the building and the lot, then the lot can't be touched.

And we have said that we have to preserve a parking lot that is currently zoned for 12 stories in a housing crisis, and that it has to be that way in perpetuity.

I I mean that and what it what this really is is a workaround of zoning, because the concerns that are actually driving the request for the inclusion of the parking lot have to do with the assessed value of the property, which will likely drop post-assessment if it's no longer zoned for 12 stories, um, and which have to do with the um the feeling that it's undesirable to have a tall building next to a lower historic building.

That's zoning.

That is not landmark.

We we cannot consider that as part of a landmark designation.

So I I have perhaps some separate questions about the hall itself, not strong ones, but I'm a little bit curious how common this building type actually is throughout the city with a little more maybe specificity or um what other buildings of this general type and era we have designated.

I would love to see that list, Cara, as a follow-up to committee.

Um, but as far as the parking lot goes, I don't even see the argument that it meets the 10 criteria to be included, and that's what we're being asked to do.

So I don't know where that leaves us as a committee in terms of um moving this out of committee to the floor.

It's certainly procedurally complete.

It's gone through landmark, it's received the blessing of the of the commission apparently.

Um, and so maybe what maybe we do just move it forward.

Um, but I can also see the argument that we we haven't even seen a case made for for meeting the three of the 10 criteria with respect to the parking lot.

Um we've only seen a case made for at most one of 10 criteria for inclusion of the parking lot specifically, and so I think that's a significant flaw.

Um, so I will say um, I will just ask for a motion in a second.

Um, oh, does anyone have?

I'm sorry, Councilmember Lewis?

Did you want to get back on the queue?

Yeah, I just have to have that look.

Go ahead.

I just have one quick question.

This is my first one.

Is it possible in the this step in the process?

I know it's already been approved from one side for the parking lot and the building to be separated.

So procedurally, could the boundary be amended?

There could be something, and I don't see an attorney here, so I'll stop here.

Oh Johnson, okay.

On the floor of first reading, I believe you could have a boundary amendment for this.

Well, and just to be clear, I think I don't think there's an issue with um designating, I mean the building and the parking lot currently have the same owner.

So if if the landmark designation, as we've had in the past with other landmarks, designates the building as historic, um, I think the issue is as council member Torres pointed out, that it's not about the boundary, it's about what is the justification for the landmark designation and therefore what can be touched in the future and what can't.

I I think.

Yeah, I mean I would say for the boundary, historic preservation policy is typically to designate the entire parcel that has been historically associated with it.

So I wouldn't recommend from a preservation standpoint to change the boundary.

Um, but the grounds, archaeological part of the basis is the part that I think is really problematic.

I think it would need to go back to the commission is my, but I am not an attorney on that, so I don't want to um speak out of turn on that, but my understanding of the process is that if you were going to change it that fundamentally, um, so in other words, it would be, and I imagine that the applicant could make the choice to not proceed further with this and go back and reapply before the floor, or they could proceed to the floor.

So I think in that case, our choice is to send it to the floor, um, as complete essentially.

Well, that was my question, too.

If they'd even be amendable to that conversation.

I don't think.

Sounds like a no, okay.

That's fine.

Well, I mean, you need some time to.

Well, I don't know that that's unless anyone's leaping to their feet to say we're we're gonna withdraw this and go back to the commission, which I don't see happening, and I don't imagine they could without consulting the entirety of their board, honestly.

Um, I think that's a conversation that the group can have after after this committee.

Um, but I think you're hearing what we're what we're sort of suggesting here.

Um yeah.

Can I just chime in?

And I don't I it maybe just be something that you want to consider before um first reading, assuming um we're we're moving this out, is um uh whether it's worth your time either now or should you pull the application and resubmit later, at least have the conversation with community planning and development about what rezoning gets you, about what a planned use development designation gets you, um, and if either of those are opportunities that you can take on um rezoning um drop could drop uh your developable um height, your land use criteria, a PUD also designates uses, so what the property is intended to be used for now until there's a change to that PUD, which would also have to come through council.

Um, just um, just as a suggestion um to think about.

And uh and uh just to piggyback on that, madam chair, um, if you have oftentimes I've done a PUD when you have a landmark, one of the criteria for a plan unit development, which gives it its own zone district, is to have a historic desert building on there.

So I worked on one on 29th and um Julian, it's two historic landmarks.

They needed to change it, we needed to rezone it, and we got a PUD because it is landmarked.

So you can go forward with your like the building and then look for a rezoning for to change the whole entire zone district to match what your uses are, um, because your land your building is landmarked.

So that is one of the criteria um in a PUD.

There's four criteria to get you to a PD, and that's one of the four most compelling that I've used in my council district.

Okay, um, do I have a motion and a second to send it to the floor?

I'll move.

I'll second.

Okay, move by all the address, seconded by Torres.

Um I would like to call for a voice vote on this.

Um this is just where it gets really fuzzy for me when our center just to send something to the floor.

I know.

Um Madam Secretary, can you take a roll call vote?

Hi, Council members.

Madam Chair, before we go to the vote, can we just remind those watching at home that a vote in committee does not necessarily a yes vote in committee does not necessarily.

Yeah.

So reiterating what council members are alluded to earlier, we um we the standard for committee votes is typically whether something is um procedurally ready to go to the floor, um, and not a commentary on the merits by those doing the voting.

So and I think you could go either way on this one.

Yeah.

I agree.

All right, thank you.

Council members, I'll use this.

Aye.

Lewis.

Romero Campbell.

Aye.

Madam President Sandoval.

Uh aye.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Torres?

Aye.

Nay.

Um closely putting an announcement results.

Five eyes.

Thank you.

Um, all right, we will see you on the floor.

Um, and we have six items on consent.

If nobody wants to take any of those off, we are done for the day.

Thanks, everyone.

All right.

Thank you.

I'm looking through.