Denver INC Delegate Meeting Minutes

June 11, 2016

Residence Inn

Meeting called to order at 9:06 a.m. 46 members signed in.

Minutes:

Meeting minutes for May 14, 2016 meeting were approved unanimously.

Visitors:

Michael Carrigan and Beth McCann, running for Denver District Attorney.

INC Charity Focus: This month’s charity drive is for the Gathering Place. Steve Heartbauer spoke on behalf of the organization. Location: E Colfax Ave and High St. Serve women, children, and transgender people experiencing homelessness. Only 3% of money comes from government – all else is donations. Dedicated to diversity. Services: 3 meals/day, showers, laundry, hygiene products, napping room, phones, mail services, lockers, food, referrals and support services, job search, GED preparation, counseling, AA meetings, attorneys, and art programs. Selling greeting cards for $2.00, where $1.50 goes to the card creator. Donations are being taken at the back of the room.

INC Directory: Will be sent out to delegates in the next week.

INC Survey: In progress.

Denveright Campaign: Combination of Denver Blueprint (land use), Denver Moves: Transit, Game Plan (parks & recreation), and Denver Moves: Pedestrian/Trails (sidewalks and trail connections). Applications are available on the Denver website – looking for 50 representatives. Attendee recommends we remember that land use also includes open space, not just more buildings.

Short-Term Rentals: Working with City leaders to craft a bill that would allow STRs under specific terms. Bill will be voted on at City Council on Monday, 6/13/16 at 5:30 p.m. Need representatives to show up and wear their “Neighbors Protecting Neighbors”) buttons in support of this bill. Rumor going around about CM Herndon offering an amendment to remove the primary residence. No amendment has been submitted yet.

INC Committee Reports:

ZAP: Resolution from ZAP: “Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation urges the Denver Community Planning and Development Department and the City Council to support a moratorium in applying Section 10.4.5.1(A) of the Denver Zoning Code to the issuance of zoning/building permits for development of apartments on small lots (6,250 square feet or less) unless adequate parking is provided. Such developments can put extreme parking pressure on surrounding neighbors and businesses.” A 6,251 sf lot is not eligible for this exemption, but the number of parking spots required is based on land use. .75 spaces/unit for apartments. Bonus parking reduces it if you are close to light rail. Affordable housing also reduces the requirement.

5 people attending today do not have a vehicle. The majority who do have vehicles have a dedicated off-street parking space/garage. Most have 2 cars or more and spaces off-street for parking. We still need a definition and answer to the question “What is adequate parking?”

Bob Hickman – Architect: re: Small Lot Parking Exemption: Section 10.4.5.1(A) of the zoning code. Zone lots smaller than 6,250 (125’ long x 50’ wide) are exempt from parking requirements. These projects favor the developers, not the community.

Projects:

• 31^st & Stout: 2 lots, 54 micro units. Estimating an extra 30 vehicles added.
• 16^th & Humboldt: 2 lots, 2 five-story micro unit buildings with restaurant on the botoom of one building. Estimate another 60 vehicles added.

Recommendation: Moratorium on application of above zoning code to get experts together to create a task force to create an amendment more successfully than what we currently have. CM Brooks encouraging task force to speak to all Council people (8 have indicated support for the amendment, 2 are non-committal, 1 has not been spoken to yet). Need support for this amendment.

Vote on Resolution:

Aye: 38 Nay: 1 Abstain: 7

PARC: Next meeting: Third Tuesday of each month at Brookdale Senior Living. Parks & Rec Advisor Board meetings have changed their meeting nights to Wednesday nights.

Public Safety & Education: Merce Lea: Public Safety and Education still working on getting kids to school safely. Next meeting: 4^th Tuesday, June 28, location TBD. Get in touch with Merce to get on mailing list. Fighting to make sure we can have our Safety Expo – no location at this time. Need a location – thinking about NW Denver if possible?

Primary Presentation: City Council Bill 16-0306 regarding increases for sanitary sewage and stormwater service fees.

City – INC – Wastewater rates presentation

Monday, 6/13/16: 1 hour of comments from citizens re: increase in stormwater fees at City Council.

City Representatives: (15 minutes)

Lesley Thomas – City Engineer – Public Works:

Storm Proactively protect against serious flooding and drainage problems. Update aging infrastructure Improve city’s water quality Provide for robust annual capital program Ensure financial health and cash reserves

Sanitation Keep pace with annually increasing costs of processing dirty water in sanitation facility Update aging infrastructure Expand flexibility and flow to accommodate growth Ensure financial health and cash reserves

 

Laura Perry – Budget Management Office.

Stormwater Bill: Based on impervious area at homes

Sanitation: Billed monthly on Denver Water bills based on how much water your household uses.

The representatives from the City gave the same presentation they have been giving to public groups for the past few months. No changes. :

INC RESOLUTION RE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CB16-0306

(Amending the Municipal Code Re: Storm and Sanitary Fees)

Whereas, Ordinance CB16-0306 provides that:

• the proposed $300M increase is the largest wastewater fee increase in the history of Denver and involves the largest bond ever issued by the Wastewater Management Division.

• residents throughout Denver will be paying an additional $340 per household over the next five years.

• the Annual Storm Drainage Service Charge will be increased after Jan. 1, 2021 in perpetuity, without a vote by City Council and

Whereas Denver Public Works contends that the Platte to Park Hill Storm Drainage Plan (P2PH) is the highest priority Denver storm water project and a solution to neighborhood flooding, although:

• $1.5B in Storm Drainage infrastructure needs were been identified in Denver’s 2014 Storm Drainage Master Plan.

• the P2PH project did not exist in Denver’s 2014 Storm Drainage Master Plan and proceeding with this project will delay other fixes identified in the plan.

• the P2PH project costs will consume a majority of the fee increase – $200M P2PH of the $300M Wastewater Fee increase

• the P2PH project, in contrast to the City’s representations and photos, will provide little to no flood benefit to the majority of Denver residents who are paying for it, including neighborhoods located within the Montclair and Park Hill basins.

• according to the January, 2015 MATT Letter of Recommendation, P2PH provides storm drainage primarily for new development: the I-70 expansion, the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative and the RTD North Metro Rail Line and

Whereas, the INC Delegation passed a Resolution (64 to 1) at its March 13, 2016 meeting expressing grave concern with the P2PH plan and asking the City to more carefully study alternatives

Now Therefore, Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation calls upon Denver City Council in its fiduciary capacity and as trustee of City funds:

• to carefully consider the long term implications of a $300 million Storm Drainage Service Charge over the next five years followed by a perpetual increase of such charge thereafter,

• to request further study and prioritization for capitalizing the more than $1.5 billion citywide storm drainage infrastructure needs and

• to remove the Platte to Park Hill funding from the Storm Drainage Service Charge increase so that needed sanitation projects and regular storm water maintenance can begin without the need to issue committing the city to a controversial mega-project.

 

Discussion re: resolution:

Call the question:

Aye: 39 Opposed: 1

Motion to adopt the INC Resolution:

Aye: 24 Nay: 5 Abstain: 11

Kim Morse – Cole neighborhood

Nobody is denying the need for better infrastructure. P2PH project was not mentioned in 2014 Master Plan. MATT letter of recommendation date 1/2015 included 3 new projects. City is allegedly trying to sell a project to areas that will not directly benefit from the projects. Projects benefit I70, RTD and N Platte Valley and draws contamination from Super Fund sites from the previous Vasquez smelter site. Need copy of MATT recommendation letter.

Christine O’Connor – Lowry neighborhood

Most of the projects will stop at 39^th Avenue and not benefit the majority of the city. 71 projects are being completed to benefit I70. Until 2013, there was no prioritization of this plan until I70 began moving forward. Does not believe this a true flood mitigation project for neighborhoods south of 39^th Ave. Will not do anything for people who live at 14^th & Jasmine who flood. Those smaller projects will have to wait. Hoping to pass this resolution to delay a decision on this:

1. Too many unknowns
2. Too many questions without answers
3. Not enough time to go through facts
4. Alternatives dismissed in 1 page memo from Matrix
5. Environmental risks unknown and need evaluation
6. No cost break down
7. Never went to P&R advisory committee

Q&A:

1. Why are we building for a 100 year flood when the standard is 5 years.
   1. City’s level of service is for 100 year – industry standard for major waterways. Streets carry water up to 1 foot deep. Greater than 1 foot causes property damage.
2. Why are we comparing Denver rates with Park rates – apples and oranges?
   1. Intent is to show the burden.
3. What is maximum rainfall in Denver area yearly?
   1. 15-17 inches average
4. How many years has that been exceeded and when?
   1. 2013 – sand creek 16 inches in 2 days
   2. No response to Denver amounts
5. City plans to mitigate 100 year events yet 2014 storm water program mandated 2 year residential and 5 year commercial mitigation. Why are you proposing that this small area have 100 year mitigation when the rest of the city is not getting the same? 100 year mitigation is prohibitively expensive.
   1. Everyone in the city gets the same service. Montclair and Park Hill pipe is 25% of what it needs to be.
6. 30% increase in 5 year period – large increase. Seems that significant portion are going toward P2PH project. Is this draining basin project directly related to the I70 project? Wants a definitely response.
   1. Project is in the same basin. This is a problem whether I70 changes or not. Denies direct correlation to I70 project. Claims to be adding to the 1930s project to address increases in need.
7. Flood project is the 39^th Ave ditch regardless of I70. Taking advantage of funding from CDOT to do the project that was needed anyway?
   1. Project will happen no matter what.
8. Used to pay $60 for 1,000 gallons of water. This is not about the cost. We support infrastructure. Can we change resolution to state it’s not really about money but it’s more about this actual project. Perhaps 2 separate resolutions?
   1. Probably will not be any amendments at this time.
9. Response to pieces in the motion:
   1. CPI increases: fixed rate increase for 5 year period then reverts back to current CPI increase. Wastewater will continue to increase after the 5 year increase. During the 5 year period, it will not follow the CPI increase. This project exceeds the CPI increase.
   2. 2014 Master Plan does not include P2PH: Montclair/Park Hill do not have a waterway and need a larger system.
      1. Masterplan is considered a living document – supposed to get better every time it is updated.
10. If P2PH is not related to I70, why are you putting it to the 100 year level? Are you going to move everything to the 100 year level?
    1. 100 year level protection is our standard of service. When it rains and water runs downhill, pipes will dump into gulches or Platte and keep 1 foot or less of water on streets.
11. City Park area in Flood Modeling Map (hydrology study): Water gets to the ballfield in 100 year flood without being piped, without being pumped. Why was free capability not included when considering detention? Responses previously stated we have no way to get the water there. The ballfields are already acting as a free detention pond.
    1. Using the low lying area where there used to be a creek instead.
12. People were not happy at the public outreach meetings. People don’t want the golf course torn up. Don’t want I70 widened. Don’t want trees cut down at City Park. Believes presentation is skewed and does not like this project.
    1. City wide plan for city needs. Determined where to best leverage other people’s money and create solutions. Trying to take a bite out of a $1.5 billion need. Asking for $383 million now. Trying to coordinate with other project in neighborhoods as resources become available.
13. Website: http://www.denvercandobetter.org for video and petition.
14. Distrust between city and neighborhoods. Goes back to Intergovernmental Agreement last year that went through with no public comment. Nobody believes this project is not related to the I70 project. There should be a MEPA process for this project.
    1. City claims no federal money in this project.
15. There was a courtesy open conversation during a city council meeting. Mayor asked for a robust community engagement process – NDCC created.

Rafael Espinoza:

Proposed change to resolution:

• The annual storm draining service charge will be increased after 1/1/21 in perpetuity, without a vote from City Council

30 year repayment of bonds.

• No amendments were accepted

 

Adjourned: 11:36 PM