Speaker 0: 880 nays, three abstention. 1124 has been ordered published. Those are all the bills for introduction. We've got one bill. Final consideration, two council members, Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Ortega, I'll say, or either one of you two. Did you want to that called out for a vote or just for questions or comments either one for vote. For vote. Question All right, Councilwoman, I take it would you are you okay putting put it on the floor or would you prefer to somebody else to do it?
Speaker 8: I think I would prefer that someone else put it on.
Speaker 0: Certainly.
Speaker 8: Councilman, some questions as well.
Speaker 0: But Councilman Brooks, can you have 1132 placed on final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 1: Why? Certainly, Mr. President, I put Council Bill 1132 on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and we'll have a second catch up. Councilman Rob, since you're first in the queue, I'll start with you.
Speaker 5: Okay. I do have some questions. It questions actually, this bill is on second reading and was not pulled out on first reading. It's a bill approving a grant agreement for some transportation planning for the aerotropolis. I guess it's up there so people can see it because of an article actually in the Aurora Sentinel. It came to some Denver citizens attention who started asking questions, which I would like to ask tonight. So, Aaron, I, I think I think you can remember all four of these in order. So first and then I think I'll probably have one follow up. The first question is where are the where do the grant funds come from? Who is the agreement between? We know the city of Denver is one of those. So how will we participate with CDOT? That's only three. We'll start with those three.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the grant, it was a matching grant.
Speaker 0: And Aaron, could you introduce yourself?
Speaker 4: My name is Aaron Burroughs. I'm here representing DIA. It was a $500,000 matching grant from the Federal Highway Administration. So DIA did put in $125,000 of our own money. So that was the first question. Your second question is the agreement is between DIA, the city of Denver, and CDOT and CDOT. What the plan was is to have that be the neutral third party to manage this contract. And we're going to we're going to have them we're going to work in conjunction with them to hire a consultant to do this transportation, planning, transport, transportation and infrastructure planning.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so then my well, just to follow up, I understand why we need a neutral party, but could you elaborate on that?
Speaker 4: All right. We'll see. That has experience working with multiple jurisdictions. And because this is a study on the northeast metro quadrant, there are multiple jurisdictions involved. And given that there is also mediation, we thought it would be best to have a neutral third party manage this contract.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so other Commerce City, Aurora, other municipalities like Denver will be involved. Do you anticipate a citizen advisory committee that?
Speaker 4: I don't know exactly, but I do know that we will have a seat at the table and the city of Denver, DIA, Aurora, Adams County, Brighton, Commerce City. We'll all have our own say so.
Speaker 5: And then finally, the bottom underlying reason every time you talk about transportation in Denver to me is the multi-modal aspect. And I want to be sure that we for the money that DIA is putting into it, for the work that Denver in DIA did in acquiring this, that we really have a multi-modal focus in, how can we foster that?
Speaker 4: Well, given that DIA did receive the grants and we are putting in a substantial amount of money, we are going to also be a part of the conversation and make sure that that point of view is stressed in these conversations.
Speaker 5: Will there be any follow up from this council on it? Maybe.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. We do intend on keeping all of council updated on on this and if any questions come up in the meantime, we're always open for discussion.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right. I'll yield.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I also have a few questions. So first of all, this is part of a contract that we approved previously, correct? That is doing with planning overall for the Aerotropolis, which includes a whole cast of different players, if you will, that are part of it, correct?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 8: So so what are the deliverables that we've received so far for the 490? 8409 $401 that have been spent.
Speaker 4: Actually, none of that has been that money hasn't been spent. There is a small portion of money that was spent, and that was for a previous on call, a contractor that we had. But out of that $500,000 that we did receive, 408, $498,401 has currently not been spent, and that is for the future.
Speaker 8: And so we're adding an extra $124,600.
Speaker 4: That is why we to.
Speaker 8: The contract and and is that with the the conglomerate of who all those different players are.
Speaker 4: Know that that money that $125,000 comes from DIA. It was part of the our agreement for the matching grant.
Speaker 8: So this is just.
Speaker 4: Discussed just is money that someone.
Speaker 8: That is that out of DIA operating dollars or is that part of the general fund money that would normally come to the city's general fund from taxes generated from the various concessions. And so non airport revenue I guess I should.
Speaker 4: Say this is this is DIA is money comes from what comes from one of our funds and I think I believe it's fund 98 or 94, but it is not using any taxpayer money. It's not coming from the city's general fund.
Speaker 8: What is it, non airport revenue?
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 4: Non airline revenue you mean.
Speaker 8: That's what I mean. I mean. So one of the things that I would like to see is the scope of work on this contract. So if you can get that to me, I would appreciate it because I like to thoroughly review that so that when you come back to committee and give us an update on what kind of progress has been made with this contract, we can at least be, you know, thoroughly familiar with it and ask some intelligent questions about where we're going with this. The on call contractor. What is the uncle contractor doing and how is that different from. I mean, is that part of the multiple players that are involved with this planning.
Speaker 4: The uncle contractor that we're going to get from Cedar?
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes. They're so weird. So Sudan is going to be managing this contract. So this uncle contractor is going to be one of that's on call contractors that we're going to be using.
Speaker 8: So so who's been managing this so far? Has it been seedat or is it somebody else that's been managing.
Speaker 4: It so far? It's been DIA. We were the ones who received the grants and now we're going to be working with S.A. to use them as their.
Speaker 8: New decision that's been made to shift the responsibility over to see Dot to manage this.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 8: Why?
Speaker 4: Because we need a third. Because of the sensitivities of the issue. We want a neutral third party to manage this contract.
Speaker 8: But it's managing the planning for the aerotropolis, not necessarily the transportation issue. Solely, correct?
Speaker 4: Not the Aerotropolis planning the infrastructure and transportation mobility planning.
Speaker 8: That's not what the bill title says. It's it's says.
Speaker 4: Those plans are part of as a result of the growing aerotropolis. We also need to take infrastructure and transportation plans into consideration.
Speaker 8: I get that. But what is in front of me says undertake the dia aerotropolis planning. And in my mind that's all of the planning for aerotropolis, not just transportation related issues. If it was solely transportation and it dealt with highways and some of the things that CDOT deals with, then I might be more comfortable with that. But the fact that CDOT does not normally do bigger picture planning around other things. Right. That's where I'm not comfortable with this.
Speaker 4: Well, that's where we we that's where we rely on the expertize of the consultants because they do have experience in those matters.
Speaker 8: But you're saying that. See Dot will oversee all that work. And they. It sounds like, because we already have the team of people. I'm not clear what it is that this. On call contract or how that's different from the team of people that are already on board. Is it the same? Is it different?
Speaker 4: It's the same people that are already on board.
Speaker 8: You're just saying the management of this will be different now? It's no longer seed and it's no longer dia. It's not.
Speaker 4: Correct. Okay. But we will be having input of our own as well, as long as these as well as these other jurisdictions. That's why it's so important to have set up, because there is different jurisdictions involved and they do have experience dealing with multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'm just not comfortable with that playing this major role because their primary function is transportation planning and and the work that has been done, as I recall, as it was brought forward to us originally for the work that's being done with their Acropolis is so much greater than just transportation. I'm not comfortable voting in favor of this tonight. I think the work that's happening is important to to be done to help us figure out, you know, where are we in particularly in relationship to the conversations that we're having with our neighboring counties. But in terms of just the oversight. I'm not comfortable with it. So I will be voting no against this tonight and just wanted to explain that. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Robb.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Aaron, you actually confused me a little bit or that line of questioning. How is this planning different from the ch2 am hill planning that we approved some time ago because Denver has contracted with C or DIA excuse me has contracted with c, h2m Hill to do planning. So I did believe coming into this meeting that this was a transportation planning that would supplement that. But. You know, now, it was unclear in that line of questioning whether this is just transportation, how this plan sort of meshes with the to him Hill plan.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I do actually have a colleague with me from airport planning, so I am going to ask that he comes up. Hi I'm Brandon house with day planning. And I think the clearest distinction is that the term hill planning is focused solely on Airport City, meaning it's on a property, whereas this aerotropolis planning is going to be for the whole northeast metro quadrant and that will involve multiple jurisdictions. And that's the primary difference.
Speaker 5: Okay. That that helps. And then finally, without this quote match from DIA, what we're voting on tonight, do we still have the grant funding? Will the planning still go on? I mean, what we're voting on is this match.
Speaker 4: A requirement of receiving the grant was a 20% local match. And so this 125,000 is that local match. So that's one of the requirements of the grant. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Robert Kaplan.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a new area of discussion for me. I didn't serve on this committee. So if it did get heard in committee, I did not. I did not know about it. So can I please follow up by clarifying who is the grant from? Where was the source of the funds?
Speaker 4: The Federal Highway Administration, FAA?
Speaker 5: And then I want to clarify, because everything.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, it's not the FAA. It's the Federal Highway.
Speaker 5: Administration, FHA, Federal Highway Administration. Okay. Very important distinction. Thank you. So then can I clarify this? Is amending an existing agreement? So we already had a contract with Seedat?
Speaker 4: No, I don't. Oh, yes. But this is in order.
Speaker 5: It's amending a grant agreement with Seedat. So we already had some contract with Seedat.
Speaker 4: Correct. But in order for this contract to take place, in order for us to receive the $500,000 the city needed to put in $125,000. So that's why we need council approval to have the 125,000 come into play.
Speaker 5: So correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is this bill is doing two things at once. One is it's putting in a necessary match amount that was required no matter what happened, correct? Correct. Secondly, it's making a change in a role for seedat from something that it was just something new. Correct?
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 5: So what I'm trying to then trace back is if the role that you've described in, in answer to Councilwoman Ortega's questions is new, what was their role previously? Why did we have an agreement with Ciudad at all before.
Speaker 4: The money was originally going to go through the Colorado Department of Transportation and now the money is coming through DIA.
Speaker 5: Okay. So we're also doing something else, it sounds like. Then we're changing how the money flows.
Speaker 4: That's part of it.
Speaker 5: I think that what might be helpful is just, you know, I will I will start asking more questions. But I think what we need is a before and after of these contracts, what were the roles of all these parties before? And what is changing? Because I am a little confused. If the grant was from the feds, why did we already have an agreement with the state? And I don't I don't think share the same concern that Councilwoman Ortega does about the state playing a role in facilitating things. I think that that can be helpful. So I'm not sure that I, I have that same philosophical concern, but I clearly don't understand the the before and after of what is changing. Since this is an amendment, I need to see the existing contract which I do not have. I only have the amendment before me. So I'm missing some pieces. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Right there. But what if was there anything that you wanted to add from. Go right ahead.
Speaker 9: The four risk of confusing things even more. Let me just say that the word aerotropolis is very nebulous. It's my understanding that when you see the scope of services, the scope of work that Councilwoman Ortega talked about, you will see it is primarily about roads and transportation planning. It's not about comprehensive land use planning. The thrust, that's why it originated with a grant from the Federal Highway Administration. CDOT is an appropriate partner because it's primarily about transportation planning in the region outside the boundaries of the EIA. So again, we've got other planning contracts on site and so forth. There's probably a lot more to be done with our regional partners through the years as the whole thing takes shape. But but I just want to be clear about that. If there's concern that this is a planning for all purposes in the so-called aerotropolis area, that is not exactly correct. It's about infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure. But again, it's fair to ask for the to actually see the scope of work and we can provide that right.
Speaker 0: Councilman Monteiro said she did not have any questions. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: It's a comment. Go ahead. So I just think the communication with us becomes really important to make sure that as these things move forward and I get we had a lot of bills that move forward on consent during the holidays. But by not having had the opportunity to discuss this in committee and to see the details, it's hard to know what exactly we're being asked to vote for. So that's why I was not comfortable with this and had all those questions. And so I think as you guys continue to move things forward, and I've had this conversation with our staff director that really is asking the administration, when you bring bills to committees to committee and and especially when you're asking for information on consent, we need a lot more information because the the. Descriptions that we get is not sufficient enough for us to be able to make an informed decision about all the things that we're being asked to vote for. And then if we do let something go forward, you know, and we ask questions down the road, we're told, oh, you guys, you guys voted for this, but yet we were never given all that information up front. So I think it's vitally important and especially as we're going to have six new people coming on in, you know, in in July, that there there is a lot more details provided to us that helps us make sure that we know exactly what we're voting for. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Any other come. Oh, Catwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you, Councilman Ortega, for bringing this discussion to our attention. You know, there was recently a discussion that I was party to, you know, about the potential forthcoming plan for her, you know, Airport City. We don't know yet what it is. So and I have been asking for this information and I'm about to have. A briefing from a lead contractor about what the plan is. But it's a little bit cart before the horse to be talking about building the transportation infrastructure to service the plan that we don't even know what it is.
Speaker 4: So this is part of planning. This is not to build new infrastructure.
Speaker 7: But I mean, I it's I share Councilman Ortega's discomfort on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Shepard. Any other comments or questions on 1132? It is on the floor. So seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Ortega no. Rob pass. Shepherd no. Brooks I fats I can eat i laman. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Rob. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Councilman Rahm need to vote.
Speaker 5: Too busy thinking.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Now the results.
Speaker 3: Nine ice Tuesdays, 9.
Speaker 0: Hours, two days, 1132. It's been placed on final consideration and does pass. That was all the bills that were called out. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction of order published. Councilman Ortega, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and the block?
Speaker 8: Absolutely. I move that resolution number 1411 2115 2415 0025. The. Ordered published.
Speaker 0: We have five other ones, Catwoman. Oh, those were just from infrastructure and culture.
Speaker 8: 1502. Sorry. Oh four. 1418. And I believe that's it.
Speaker 0: There are those where you need to to from business development that you've read infrastructure and culture and safety and well-being. So the first two, 1089 and 1190.
Speaker 8: Sorry, I missed that. Sorry. Okay. So 1489 and 14, 11, 19, all ordered published. Those are resolutions. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Those were the resolutions. So adopted in a block. Got it moved in second to any. Oh.
Speaker 5: You're good. Yeah, I think we want to clarify. It's 1089, not 89, and it's 1118, not 18. So let's just clarify the numbers.
Speaker 6: 1119, 1190.
Speaker 5: Well, there was an 11.
Speaker 0: There's a 1118.
Speaker 5: Entertainment spread is an 18.
Speaker 0: Got it.
Speaker 5: So the last one from safety and well-being was read as 18 instead of 11. 18. Just trying to clean up the motion for us.
Speaker 0: We got Madam Secretary, are we good for that? All right. Any other comments? Thank you for that, Councilwoman. Can each scene? None. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Lopez. Hi, Montero. Nevitt Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Brooks. I fats. I can each layman.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi. Excuse me, Madam Secretary, please, first of all, to announce the results. 11 ice. Lebanon's resolutions have been adopted in a block. And Councilman Ortega, we please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage. However, Councilman Ortega bills 1102 and 1104 are companion bills for two bills that are scheduled for public hearing. So do not call those out. We will vote on those after the public hearings. So just 1102 and 1104, don't add that for the ones to be placed on final consideration, do pass in a block.
Amends a grant agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) by adding $124,600.25 for a new contract total of $623,001.25 to provide for joint selection of a contractor to undertake the Denver International Airport Aerotropolis planning (201312131-01). (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) Amends a grant agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) by adding $124,600.25 for a new contract total of $623,001.25 to provide for joint selection of a contractor to undertake the Denver International Airport Aerotropolis planning (201312131-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on     .  The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-31-14.