Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Black, will you please put council bills? 33, 85 and four or 542 on the floor. Sorry about that.
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that council bills 385 and 542 be ordered published in a block.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved. I need a second. Great. It has been moved in. Segment questions coming from members of Council Council on assessment.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. The administration has asked that these two bills be voted down. Concerning Council Bill 385, it's a partnership with urban drainage and flood control, and funding comes from a variety of sources, including federal grants, cost sharing, cost sharing with urban drainage and city funds. But the numbers in the actual ordinance aren't the correct ones. And so they wish we would need to vote this down tonight, and then they would refile it with the correct numbers at another time. At the same as the IS refers to the Council Bill 542. It again is a partnership with urban drainage and the funding comes from a variety of sources and they have most of it correct, except they don't have the actual the correct numbers for Denver's piece of the project. So I'm asking my fellow council people to vote these down as a block.
Speaker 2: Okay. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just want to remind you all that we have shortened our process to expedite the contracts. So we we gave up one week of us being able to look at contracts. We now call them resolutions. And so we get to see them for for a whole week. And, you know, typically the agencies have months and months and months that they work on things. They get filed. We get the details the Thursday before the Monday night meeting, and sometimes the details are always there. I did not support that change. And this is just one more example of us being expected to you know, I get that we want to make sure we got accurate information and that is important. But I am concerned that there was so much to do made about the contracting process and the need to make the change on our end. And we're the ones that had the least amount of time to get to review them. And I'm just expressing, I guess, just frustration in the process and how it works. So I just couldn't let it pass without saying that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Wow. My thoughts? Exactly, Councilwoman Ortega. So I just. Not that I need to spell this out, but this is precisely what I was talking about in my comments about we don't vote these things down unless the administration tells us. So, yeah, I will be rubberstamping this request from the administration. Yeah. Despite what we're saying that we don't do because it's going it's at least getting us. It's going to come back in the Q and I would like to have ample amount of time to review the final product. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just unclear as to what is. What are the bad numbers? Those are the dollar amounts, and.
Speaker 3: They're incorrect numbers. The dollar amounts. There's there is somebody in the audience that could speak to it, if you'd like.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that'd be great. I'd be interested to hear where the problem is.
Speaker 3: Thomas Blackman or John McGrath.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Thomas Blackman. I'm an engineer supervisor in public works. So the the numbers in the agreements are correct. But they're we wanted to make sure that we represented the contractual obligations of the city. It wasn't clear in this summary. So that's why we wanted to redo this summary to to represent the numbers so you could see the actual contractual obligations of the city. And Kay. There were a.
Speaker 5: Lot confused me even more so. I'll definitely support a little more time. There is no and I shouldn't read this as any indication that we're not supporting the deal itself. It's just details.
Speaker 1: Yes. Is that correct? Yes. We when we put together the information. We were more focused on urban drainage. His contribution to the two projects versus the city's obligation that we are. We are going to Sanderson Gulch, for example. Urban drainage is putting $1,000,000 towards the project, and that's the primary primary purpose of this amendment. But we do have to put in the total project costs. So we want to make sure that the Council is aware that we are committing the city per this amendment to $7 million, which is going to be you guys looked at the grants that are coming from federal governments are going to cover that portion.
Speaker 5: But when would you expect to refile this?
Speaker 1: We are short order. Yeah. Where are you going? To read. Redo him. Work with John McGrath in the Attorney's Office and make sure that we represent. Just so that's very clear on what the city is committed to.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I suppose we could send a message to the administration by approving this over their objection. But I'll. I'll. I'll refrain from suggesting that in lieu of perhaps 30 more seconds, explaining what it is in the language that was submitted, that is at fault. Yeah. I'm John McGrath, the city attorney. So. There are two of them. And I'll describe sort of overall what the issue is, and then we can get okay with each of them. But Sanderson Gulch is one of the two, and what happened is that these are somewhat complicated funding agreements where two or in some cases three different governmental entities are contributing funds to a project. These are projects that were already in existence and are sort of moving on to the next phase where additional funding is coming in. So what happened is in the original bill request, all of that detailed information was laid out. But somewhere in the process between there and coming up with the short blurb that you see in the agenda, information was omitted. So the description in the agenda is accurate but not complete. Okay. Information was omitted. And so we're not really under the underlying contracts aren't changing. It's just that we wanted to make sure that council and the public have the opportunity to see what's actually happening. That's the whole picture. That's good. In other words, the contract that was filed that we have in the system here is not changing. It's not change. It's just the way we're describing it here. Thank you. That's very good. I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Okay. Councilwoman Ortega, do.
Speaker 1: You just.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to ask, you mentioned something about $7 million is the that's the remainder of the total cost. Is all of that coming in grant funding or is there additional general fund money that needs to sort of fill that gap?
Speaker 1: We are we are receiving grant funds from who are receiving each MGP grant from the feds and CDBG grant from the state. That's going to cover the majority of that. And then anything else, we're currently in design and working on cost estimates and everything else would would have to be come from Wastewater Wastewater Enterprise Fund. Okay. And the did want to see these are going on ordinance.
Speaker 2: Hold on real quick. Uh, David Brower is the city attorney.
Speaker 1: David Bravo, Assistant City Attorney. Let me just add this clarification for everybody's benefit to this is not an example of where the fix is just going to be coming back with a new bill next week. It's because the bill.
Speaker 5: Request needs.
Speaker 1: To be.
Speaker 5: Corrected and clarified. So you all will see this.
Speaker 1: As a new bill request that you'll have the opportunity to ask questions about pull off consent or or having a committee or consent process. So I just want to be clear about that. This is just going to be refiled next week. It's going all the way back to a new and clarified bill request to jive with the proper what should have been the proper description of the contract. So just know that that's what that's what's going to play out next.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Dave. Mr. Broadwell. Well, Councilwoman Ortega, do you have another question?
Speaker 6: I was just clarifying whether or not, you know, there were additional there would be additional hits to the city budget if that wasn't covered by the grants. And I think you you clarified clarified it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, are you back up? No. Okay, great. It's been moved. And secondly, you guys can have a seat. Thanks for coming up. It's moved and seconded. The committee and the administration has asked us to vote this down, obviously to be refiled. So. 385 Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: It also includes 542 and 542.
Speaker 2: Thank you. What will we do without you?
Speaker 4: Assessment?
Speaker 3: No. Black? No.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Flynn? No. Gilmore? No. Herndon? No. Cashman? No. Kenny Lopez? No. New Ortega? No. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I was just proven to counsel Councilman Espinosa. It wasn't a, uh. Anyway, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: Zero ice, 12 nays.
Speaker 2: Zero ise, 12 nays comfortable. 385 and 542 have been killed. All right. Let's see. Are we. Are we done, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. All other bills for introductions are order published. We are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills for front of consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Black, will you put the resolutions for adoption and bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that resolutions be adopted in bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 17 Dash 055205530554055505560557055805600561057705790588058905900591059204610471053405800583058505860291056205660569058105820390057205310530053205360537.
Speaker 2: All right, Madam Secretary, we get them all.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. It has been moved and second it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black eye. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Gillmor. I heard in Cashman I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please cause voting announce results. 1212. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Since there's no public hearings and there's no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess.
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendment to Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District regarding flood control improvements for Sanderson Gulch Lipan Street to South Platte River.
Amends an intergovernmental agreement with Urban Drainage and Flood Control District by adding $1 million for a new total of $2.6 million to partially fund flood control improvements along Sanderson Gulch from Lipan Street to the South Platte River to reduce risk of flooding from 10, 25, 50 and 100-year storm events in Council District 7 (201523631). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-26-17. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 4-4-17.