Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

Hey, Denver, it's time for this biweekly meeting of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of Denver City Council. Join us for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee starting now.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Today is Wednesday, June 3rd. My name is Chantel N. Lewis. I serve as your Council District 8 representative and I'm excited to continue to chair this committee. We'll start with a round of introductions and we can start with folks online.

Good afternoon. Stacey Gilmore, District 11.

Thank you so much. And then we can start with you, Councilman Boyd.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver District 2.

Laura Alvarez, Lucky District 7.

Good afternoon. Paul Cashman, South Denver District 6.

Good afternoon. Amanda Sandoval, Northwest Denver District 1.

Hello. Chris Hines, Denver's Perfect Time.

Perfect timing. Thanks. All right. With that, we have an action item and a briefing. The first is an action item from DEN. So I'll let you all introduce yourselves and then you can get into your presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am Chris Herndon, Chief Commercial Officer at DEN, and I'll have them introduce themselves.

Good afternoon. I'm Pamela Deshawn, Senior Vice President of Concessions at DEN.

Good afternoon, Council Members. My name is Brandon Sowers, Senior Director of Concessions at DEN.

Madam Chair, we do have closing remarks, but I wanted to say before we go, on behalf of CEO Phil Washington and Den, we want to wish the very best to Councilwoman Parity for, one, a full health recovery, as well as thanking her for all she's done for the city and county of Denver, as well as Den. Thank you for that. We heard about that, so we wanted to offer that.

We hate it. Don't let me forget your closing remarks, because I forget sometimes.

Okay. All right. Certainly will. So we have a four-year consideration to move to the full council, an advertising contract where we will award the JC to CO and Pam will walk you through that. I will speak to a letter that was received yesterday that we received that I'm sure council members may have questions about. So we'll speak to that and after that we will have any questions and we have several members of the DIN team that can address anything if we can't do it at this table.

Okay, I'll begin. Thank you. We're here today together to present a significant non-aeronautical revenue agreement for Denver International Airport. This contract will reshape how advertising looks and feels throughout the terminal and concourses for the next decade. The total contract value of what we present today of over $184 million represents the guaranteed base rent that DEN will collect over the 10-year period. This base rent is guaranteed to the airport regardless of JCDecaux's sales performance. This guarantee is a floor. It is not a sales and revenue ceiling. On top of the guaranteed base rent, the contract includes percent rent tied to actual advertising sales. In other words, DEN will receive the greater of the guaranteed base rent or the percentage rent, so strong sales years will generate additional revenue above the guarantee while the airport is fully protected on the downside. The beginning percent rent is 72.5% of gross sales from advertising. Here is what JCDecaux is delivering under this contract, a minimum capital investment of over $16 million. JCDecaux is investing in the program upfront, so there's no capital cost to DEN. Installation of all new advertising assets, a modern and predominantly digital advertising network. the removal of all previous advertising assets, clearing out the legacy inventory, and the Pena welcome sign. And to be very clear, JCDecaux is only replacing the actual digital screens on which advertising is sold. The art component, also known as the sticks, will be transitioned to the airport for management. And finally, full management and the sale of all advertising. JCDecaux handles the entire program, end to end, including advertising sales. When we put this RFP out to bid, it includes some of our core planning principles that we've been working on at the airport since our master plan launched in 2019. And part of our core planning principles speak to decluttering, removing that visual noise that tends to confuse our passenger and our guest. Because as we've all experienced, when you come up from the train platform now in current state, it is a plethora of... messages and wayfinding. And so part of the goal in releasing this RFP was to go for a less is more approach. We wanted to reduce the overall number of assets and do less is more and really clean up that line of sight, not just for the commercial master plan, but for our guest convenience in general. We're thinking fewer, smarter, higher value digital assets will replace a larger volume of a bunch of static advertising along with digital. So you can look at it as reducing the quantity, the number of the signs without reducing revenue. In fact, increasing revenue. Talking about Vision 100, this contract directly supports Vision 100, the second pillar, growing our infrastructure. JCDecaux will add new digital advertising assets and remove the old assets that currently impede the passenger wayfinding that I just discussed. The result is a better customer experience and increased non-aeronautical revenue, both core to how DEN funds operations without raising costs for our airline partners. This is infrastructure investment that pays for itself while improving the passenger experience. The airport ran a thorough, transparent outreach process for this contract. Every single qualified firm had a fair, well-supported opportunity to compete. The Commerce Hub and the project manager that ran this procurement did a targeted outreach. The airport conducted a special in-person outreach event for each of the major airport media companies last year during the month of February in 2025. Our monthly Den Taking Flight Procurement Opportunity Outreach, it happens monthly, was held in March of last year. There were 411 attendees present at this outreach event. We also made this, because of the scale of the opportunity, a mandatory pre-proposal, so all bidders were required to attend the pre-proposal conference last April. Finally, there are site visits that we held for two full days, on April 15th and 16th, so that each proposer could spend enough time with the airport to understand the scale of the opportunity and what exactly was included. Moving on to goals, because of the U.S. Department of Transportation's interim final rule related to the ACDBE program, there's no current ACDBE goal on this contract. But the important point is that the city retains the right to impose a future— Oh, that sounds spicy.

Pardon?

Anyhow, as I was saying, although there's no current ACDB goal, the airport retains the right to assign a later goal of 2% on this contract. Let's move on to Minority Women-Owned Business Enterprise, also known as MIBI-WIBI. The Division of Small Business Opportunity will assign a goal after execution of the concession agreement. So that will take place at that time once the concessionaire chooses and signs with a contractor. Here's the process that the airport went through. We released this competitive request for proposals, had three qualified bidders that you can see listed here. The selection panel, each of our procurements at the airport contain an independent selection panel made up of subject matter experts across the city and county of Denver. This one was no different. It was made up of concessions, advertising, marketing, business technology, and financial subject matter experts. and one community panel member. The interviews lasted a little bit longer than our typical concessions procurement interviews in that they were three hours each. We wanted to allow proper time for everyone to be able to present their ideas. Listed in ordinal ranking on the slideshow, you'll see it was JC Decoe, Lamar, and Clear Channel Airports. Overview of JCDecaux. They were founded in 1964. One of the largest out-of-home media companies in the world and a global leader in airport advertising. Operating in 153 airports across 38 countries. JCDCO has implemented a first-class advertising program in nine of the 20 largest international airports, and their ACDBE partner that they bid with before this interim final rule is J. Perez Associates, a qualified, certified firm that will provide maintenance and operation services for the program. Let's talk about the benefits and the impacts to our guests. an enhanced passenger experience through a reduction in advertising assets. Again, fewer signs, clearer sight lines, better way finding consistent with the concessions master plan, increased non-aeronautical revenue through a thoughtful modern digital advertising program, a managed transition from the incumbent clear channel airports who have been doing a great job in transitioning and working with us, a commitment to marketing campaigns This is a big one for the airport that support dense stakeholders, putting this whole advertising network to work on behalf of the entire airport community. This is one of those rare programs that improves the environment and grows revenue at the same time. To close. The airport seeks Council approval of contract listed here with JCDecaux Airports. This is an essential contract that will enhance our customer experience and increase non-aeronautical revenue by adding new digital advertising assets and removing the old assets that impede passenger wayfinding. We respectfully request your approval on this agreement. Chris Herndon, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Pam.

So yesterday we were very aware of a letter that the committee members received from the current incumbent, Claire Jannell, having concerns about the RFP process that we wanted to address. So in their letter, the first thing they brought up was that the award appears inconsistent with the airport's obligation to maximize value. So as Pam spoke briefly about the selection process, I'm gonna walk you through and take you a little bit deeper. So it's comprised of four then subject matter experts, one airport advertising industry expert, and one community member. So we have a total of six members that were on the selection panel. From that, there are eight criteria that they are required to judge each proposal on. Those criteria are as follows. Qualifications and experience, partnership plan, sales, marketing, and pricing plan, asset plan, transition and mobilization plan, technology and maintenance plan, DIN equity, diversity, and inclusion plan, business plan, and financial officer. All those weighed up to 100%. They're not weighted equally, but from that. And so from that, each of those panel members, there are 34 questions total that they have to answer to score each of those criteria. Then they come up with the numeric value. 100 is the highest number of points that you can award to that. From that, from the six, they're averaged, and that's how we come up with our number. The awardee, JC Decoe, was nearly 15 points higher than the current incumbent. So I just want to walk you through that. So there was a concern about maximizing value. We don't look at one particular category. We look at all of them together. So that was the first thing that was brought up. Second of all, dealt with the ACDBE partner. As Pam mentioned, and as I told, that was a scoring criteria. Jay Perez, when the contract proposal was, that was their ACDBE partner. So they do have an ACDBE partner. And the third thing that was brought up talked about the idea of transparency. Honestly, not sure what exactly that we're thinking of. Maybe it's because the time we have in committee is compressed. We don't have the ability to go through all 30 plus questions, all eight criterias. But we do offer to council members, and you all are very aware, the opportunity to sit down with you prior to committee and walk you through as much or as little as you would like. And we always have done that before. We will continue to do that. If there are any concerns after moving this forward to the full council, we're happy to meet those before they go through. So those were the three questions that were brought up during that. And the hardest part about this opportunity is that we always realize when you award it to somebody, somebody's not successful. But we do believe our process is fair, transparent, and gives everyone a fair opportunity to be successful. And this process is no different than any other. And we believe J.C. Decoe will be the best awardee for this contract and are happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that follow-up from the letter that council members did receive that. We have a number of folks in the queue. Councilman Flynn, you're first in the queue. Follow that. Councilwoman Alvidrez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, maybe, Pam, could you address what took so long when, I mean, this is more than a year, and it seems to have taken a long time between the selection and coming here. So can you explain why that extended period?

One thing I'll point to for the length of time that it took is what I mentioned before with the interim final roll. That really put a stop, not just in Denver, in the entire airport industry. Every airport across the nation went to a screeching halt with any type of contract procurements, amendments, even RFPs. So that, I believe, is why it did take a little bit longer.

Go into that process again. What was required?

With the interim final rule? Well, the federal government essentially closed the program on October 3rd of 2025, which left every airport in America scrambling to understand what that could look like moving forward in the future. Anything else to add to interim final rule?

The interim final rule says with all of our contracts, we have ACDBE partners. So ACDBE partners are able to get that qualification based off of many factors which include race and sex. The federal government said you can no longer utilize race or sex to have an ACDBE. And so then we're at the space, okay, so how do we ensure that we're still taking into account all the different factors that will allow somebody to ensure equity, diversity, inclusion was a part of it? And so that's why we had to stop with our legal team. How do we move forward with the federal government saying no longer you can do that? And so what they realized were now firms have to recertify without mentioning sex or race. So that timeline was lengthy for those businesses and organizations. We now have to recertify without mentioning those qualifications.

Do we have other contracts that are in this? weird sort of period caused by D.C.?

Yeah, they're still recertifying at this time that they're all going through. So they had to redo a letter and state how they've had a hardship without mentioning race or sex. And so we, as DIN, DOTI, I believe RTD, all are going through that recertification process at the behest of the federal government. So that is what took us so long to go through that as we're still going through that and figuring out how do we move forward because it's still a value to debt.

So it's nothing specific to this contract or any of your other contracts that caused the delay. It is not. It simply was changed from Washington with the new administration. Correct. Saying DEI is. Correct. Can no longer be utilized. Well then tell, explain to me then the, there is no ACDBE goal, but 2% later and. Can it be increased afterward?

Increased? We'll get to. We, the airport, retain the right to add two percent goal in the future when and if this program comes back. As far as increasing later, there are some- About two percent. I don't think so. If we're putting the up to two percent in the contract, we would not raise that later. However, advertising looks a little different. The 2% is the current incumbent's goal right now with Clear Channel, and it gets into the details of finding qualified ACDBE firms to work with advertising partners.

Does the current folder exceed the 2%? right now do we know they're currently at 2.02 percent what do we expect from from the new one two percent two percent yeah so they're entering the agreement at two percent with or without can they exceed that absolutely they can and clear channel can also exceed that yes and lamar as well yes anyone anyone can exceed that and that doesn't incur any memos from Washington saying, why did you exceed this? No. We're okay.

We're okay.

Thank you, because I would certainly want to see greater than 2%.

We would, too. Yes.

Can you tell us here and now, and if not, can you provide it for us, what's the cumulative minimum annual guarantee for each of the three finalists over the 10 years? You've mentioned J.C. DeCoe is $184 million over the 10 years minimum. What was the MAG for the acronym BINGO, minimum annual guarantee for the other two. Can you provide that?

Respectfully, I cannot speak to it as I have not seen the bids, but perhaps a team member

We don't have that readily available. We can get that to you by end of day.

I think that's important. Okay. And then finally, last question, Madam Chair. What material differences exist, if any, in the contract, which I haven't seen yet and I asked for it yesterday, but hope to see it. We can get that to you. I'm sorry? We will get that to you, counsel. Okay, thank you. What material differences exist in the contract compared with the RFP requirements, if any? The things that were negotiated after the award, because that always occurs with any contract when you... when you bring the final.

I don't believe any material changes have occurred, Brandon.

No material changes we did at an interim period. Given the uncertainty with the interim final rule, there's an interim period until year one starts. Year one contract, when you see, will start on January 1st of 2027.

Okay. Well, then what happens with, because one of those differences, I think, is what the 70 some percent of gross revenue to the extent that exceeds the MAG to our benefit, but it goes down later to a 60 some percent?

Yes. Explain that. It starts at 72.5% for this contract, and then there's a tier, a break point, in which it changes and it goes down. So it's an incentive for the operator to sell much more in gross sales. So a typical—you may have seen some concession agreements that are incentivized in the opposite way, right? The more they make— The more they pay. Yeah, right. So this is a little different in that the more they make the less percent front they will pay, but it will still. Net more revenue and the exact percent once. 30Million is achieved is.

62.5% is what they'll pay on that.

62.5%? 62.5%. So it drops 10%. Correct. Okay. What's the trigger for that? 30? 30 million. Okay. And their MAG is 18? Their MAG in year one is 15 million. 15. Okay. All right. Dr. Pond roll that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilwoman Rodriguez. Thank you, Committee Chair. I'm curious about the noise that you spoke about. It is loud. And how is this going to help that situation?

This will help by removing the actual number of assets. And when I say assets, that includes the actual signs and the digital signs, like the static posters that you see everywhere. This will help by eliminating a large percent of those, leaving room for actual wayfinding for the guest, and then deliberate advertising in that, say a bigger, more deliberate video wall versus 35 small signs that create together all of that visual noise.

Somebody won't have to click through a 30-second or minute video to get to the information that they need, right? Oh, no. Okay. It's just a static ad processing. It's not also having information like wayfinding on the screen that you're talking about.

No, no. We want to keep wayfinding separate because we know that it's the number one priority to offer our guests directions and make a more intuitive journey than it is today.

And then when you talk about where these signs are, are we also counting on expanding overall where signs will be? For example, I know that we're planning on putting paths in the tunnel where there'll be ads down there. Will there be screens down in those tunnels? Is that part of the plan?

Well, that is a great question. We can absolutely consider putting screens down there if the airport chooses that. But the goal is not to do more. It's to do less in a more effective way. manner while giving people the ability to focus on where they're actually going.

And how much is this contract generating in its current form annually?

Annually?

So the current contract in 2025, their MAG was only $3.3 million based on the 2012 contract, but the actual rent to the airport was around 16 million 16.5 we're receiving about a 15 increase in the new one when we start in 2027 with the mag plus the over trend okay i appreciate that i will just say i am concerned about approving this without the goals already established firmly um

but that's all I have right now, thank you.

Committee chair. Council President Sandoval. Thank you. My questions are gonna be the same. I don't feel comfortable approving this without a goal. So I understand that the recertification has been an issue. I have friends who have concessions out there. My family has one. So I get it. But we can follow our own ordinances that allow us to have goals. And you say it in your own slide. And so I don't understand why you would come to this body when we've said that this is our priority to have support minority businesses and women businesses. You could follow our own goals and not have to listen to the federal government I believe, because everyone, I'll say other contracts that we have follow our own goals. We really do, we have a DISBO goal. We have one, and so Dottie, they don't have to do that, and I get that your FAA and the requirements are different, but there's still the minority certifying as a small local business minority. You have to do the same thing, whether you're bidding on a DOTI goal or a contract, whether you're bidding on any contracts in the city and county of Denver. We just had one that came through our janitorial contract, and it had a huge goal in it. So the fact that this doesn't have any goal And you're asking us to trust, and I'm sorry, I'm just not in the process of trusting right now. I'm in the process of verifying. I would feel more comfortable if you brought this contract back with the 2% goal in it, showing how that works. Because right now what happens is if we approve this, we lose that 2% that's already in Clearwater. The channel, sorry, clear channel, and we would lose that. And so, yeah, you can come back. But when are you going to come back and tell us that you did this? We have so many things coming on in the city and this is a huge thing. And I'll just say I've been at the airport frequently and I get it. It's a lot of. Clear the clutter, for lack of a better word. I think that's a great slogan. But it also has a lot of construction in there right now, so it's hard for me to figure out what's the construction signs, what's the digital sign. And I'll just be a... That $14 million sign, I can't even believe we paid $14 million sign for that. And so for you to say that they're going to take over the advertising of the $14 million sign that we paid, then paid, not the taxpayers, because it's an enterprise fund, that the lights don't even work? It's like I can't even drive by there and think to myself that the airport spent $14 million on that sign. So I'm not comfortable with moving this forward. I'll just say that until we could talk about the goals, because we don't have to follow what the federal government is saying for that goal. You can actually award it because we have an ordinance in the city and I've asked this numerous times on numerous contracts that have been coming through for us. unless you tell me different, that we actually have, there's a limitation, but I don't think there is, that you can't actually award it.

Council President, I was going to ask our legal counsel if he wouldn't mind coming to speak, because I want to make sure we put out the right information to you. You can sit down, David.

Good afternoon. David Steimer, Assistant General Counsel at the airport. Council Member, a couple of things I'll say. There's two programs that are at play. The local MWE program, which we're proceeding with in this contract, it's presented there. There are no goals in it right now because the The program is being set up now so that there's going to be a design goal. Once the contract is awarded, our DSBO is going to identify a design goal for the work that's going to happen. Once that's done, they're going to set a construction goal. So there'll be two goals. We used to historically have one goal for the entire program, which was problematic because you didn't know what the construction was going to look like while you were still in design. So now it can be tailored goals for the design phase and then the construction phase. The ACDB piece is the separate DOT part that was interrupted by the interim final rule from USDOT. And that basically paused the entire ACDB program, DBE program for other construction projects as well. And so you mentioned if we stay with where we are now, then the clear channels 2%, 2.02% stays in play. It's actually not the case right now. So right now, there are no ACDB goals for any contracts at the airport because there are no ACDB confirmed program right now. So we can't impose goals until all the firms get recertified and we can reconstitute the pool. So until that happens, everything is on pause. What we did here was not to exceed the 2 percent goal, which was what DSBO had set as the goal for this contract pre-IFR. We created a mechanism so that we have the opportunity once the program is back up and running and we've reconstituted the ACDB pool, we can now impose goals again. We contractually got ourselves the ability to go back to where we would have been otherwise. The alternative is we...

I'm going to interrupt because we have another agenda item. You just repeated everything I just said and I'm saying I don't feel comfortable with you all doing this because we are the board that has oversight on the airport, correct? Correct. And so I want to hold that accountable. That's my job, I feel. That's what I was elected to do. So I'm saying I don't trust this to happen on the back end. I'm just saying that. I understand that you all are saying that, and you all could also make the decision to not do it. Correct? Hypothetically? Correct?

Yeah. To hold off the contracts.

To hold off, you can. You could hold off not having the goals implemented, correct? Once this is approved through this body, it's 100% in your lane, correct? Correct. And so you could also choose not to have those goals implemented, correct?

Correct.

I'm just saying that I don't feel comfortable colleagues doing that. I mean, I'm gonna be a stickler and say that I feel like that's giving away our power. We're the board in our charter that oversees the airport and if our Our goals or our philosophy or our values are to have goals and we should have them. And I understand that it's you can implement them. It's a we can. And I'm saying I feel like it should be.

And I apologize, Madam President. I might be wrong, but currently right now, due to the federal government's IFR.

No, but the local, what David said at the very beginning.

Correct. But for this federally, we are unable to have an ACDB goal. Should this be approved, we've had a conversation with DISBO. There will be a design ACBD requirement as well as a construction ACDB.

But you can utilize that or you don't have to? With all due respect, you don't have to do that, correct? Is it mandated? Let me say it in a different way. Is it mandated in the contract that once we approve this, you have to? It has to. It's mandated in the contract that you have to do the 2%. No.

Are you referring to DISPO or construction or overall? DISPO. So we will do that? No.

Is it mandated in the contract? Because I haven't read the contract. Is it written in the contract you have to?

Up to the 2%, yes. So we will have, there will be a digital goal for as well as construction, those two. There will be.

Point five.

We do say up to, that is correct, Madam President.

Yeah, right?

That does say.

Yeah, and you could do point two, right? You don't have to go all the way up to 2%.

It doesn't say the 2%. It says it up to.

That is correct. So you don't have to do it because you can go up to 2% or you don't have to unless it's mandated in the contract, which I haven't seen. So if it changes the contract, if the contract language says this and it changes and it says there's enabling language in the contract to say, we will do the 2%, 100%, let's pass this on. It says, if I haven't read it, if I'm going off of your attorney, it says up to, I don't feel comfortable moving this out of here.

And the reason it's the up to amount is that the goals that DISBO set could change once all the certified firms are recertified the goals change because this pool size so for if the the contract could come out in a year and with the goal reconstituted and disbo could say it's a one percent based on the number of firms ready willing and able to do the works so the number was to capture where we were before the ifr i and i i with all due respect i do not envy the position you all are in

with the person who's occupying the White House and all of these rules that are changing. And I do hope that you all understand I don't envy the people who hold those certifications because they have been decimated. And I want to honor those people who have done that work. And so if you can bring me a contract that says language in it that mandates this, 100%, I will approve it. With the up to, I don't feel comfortable approving it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Councilman Hines.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Council President. This is a $183 million contract. I think we should get it right. So I agree and also it would be great for us to at least have the opportunity to see contracts as we are meant to vote on not PowerPoint slides, but the actual contracts themselves. Two quick thoughts. First, values-based contract. Council Member Alvarez and I are talking about best value contracting, which would be more for construction projects, at least with our first phase. So I'm not trying to apply that potential legislation to this particular conversation, but it gets me thinking. You mentioned you have eight values, is that right?

Criteria, Council Member.

Criteria. Okay, price is one of them, I think. Correct. But there are other values, so another seven that are not price-related. And all the vendors got the same set of criteria and the same scoring values for each of the eight metrics? Is that something that you use the same eight criteria, not values, but eight criteria for every contract, or were these criteria created for this contract?

The importance of this contract is pretty severe, so we wanted to take a deeper dive. Typically, there are six, so we actually took a deeper dive on the industry standards for criteria and solicited feedback from our partners in industry standards, and that's how we came up with the eight criteria.

What are the two additional?

The partnership plan and the sales and marketing pricing plan.

And also to support Council President, up to 2% could be 0%. And that's a really small, I mean, even 2%, I think if that's the number you're looking for, that's a number. But sure, it seems to be a small number. So last question or thought process, the MAG, The minimum guarantee is $3.3 million now. Correct. And the actual amount is $16.5 million. Is that a month, a year, a quarter? What's the $16.5 million over what period? 2025. So per year. Has the current vendor and the accelerators, the stretch goal for the... this proposal is $30 million, correct? Correct. Has the current vendor ever before today, has there been an annual goal that has reached $30 million?

No.

Never?

Never. Correct. In 2025, they generated just under $25 million in gross sales.

Okay, I'm sorry. So I thought the actual was 16.5?

Correct. That's the percentage rent that the airport received.

Oh, I see.

And so the 25 million, I'm sorry, what's the? That's the gross sales that they generated from the advertising campaigns that they ran.

This is the 30Million is actually gross sales. If they reach 30Million, the proposed new contract, if they reach 30Million, it goes from. It drops 10% from 72 to 62.5%.

That is correct. Okay.

So, I guess where I'm going with this is this stretch goal. Is is something that has not been attained. To date. And I think that that's, you know, kind of important comment. I'm not, you know, just it isn't as if this were in effect for the current contract that it would ever have been triggered because it's a higher amount. Okay. And just last. Last comment, I would much rather have information before, I mean, I would much rather have information that I can use to come up with a good decision in committee and on the floor if it is possible to have it more than before. um that would be great and i understand that things happen but um but i'd love to do more research and dig into letters that i get and um i'm having it more than the day before committee should be um to be able to dig in more so just as a general comment thank you thank you

A lot of my questions were answered, but I do have one clarifying question. I see the summary and the dates for what you all mentioned in terms of that interim rule change, and I know the effective date was October 3rd. Two things. Did you all provide comments by November 3rd? And then the second question is, when is the program expected to be up and running again?

We did provide comments. So Sydney County Denver did issue comments to the IFR.

Can you tell me the nature of those?

I can, we can get you the document.

Okay.

I think that's probably the best way to do it.

Yeah, because I just, what this feels like is that we are folding again to the federal government and I just, like, At what point do we stop doing that? I'm also curious of the criteria that you all use for the DEI of those eight that you mentioned. What are the components of that?

Oh, so in regards, so with each of those eight criteria, we have questions. So Councilwoman, you're asking about what are the particular questions that spoke to that? Correct. We can get those for you. I don't have those. Okay.

Because I'm just, I guess I'm trying to hold the attention of like the federal government saying, no, we're not doing any of that DEI stuff. And then you all deciding locally that it's a priority. And so how do you scale those two with the ABCDEFG goal and the MWEB goal as well? and how you get to potentially in the future what those percentages might be. The up to 2% but also the MWEB goal as well. Those are my only two questions. We have some more folks in the queue. They're back in the queue. Council President Sandoval followed by Councilman Flint.

Thank you. So I'm looking on the legislature and in the bill request. It does say with the possibility of up to 2%. So it's confirmed it's not in the contract. It clearly says with the possibility. So that, again, solidifies what my concern is. Where is this firm located? Where are they based out of? Los Angeles. Aren't they an international firm?

JCDecaux is an international, the ACDB partner on the contract.

In the firm that we're going with JCDecaux, correct? That's who we're having the contract with, right?

Yes.

Where are they?

Based out of France.

They're based out of France. So we're taking our tax dollars, our not tax dollars, we're taking our enterprise dollars from Denver International Airport and putting them into France with a 2% goal of something under because they're based in France, correct? Or do they have a local office in Denver?

They have a local office in New York, and then their ACB firm will have operations here in Denver to operate and maintain the continuing operations for the assets.

Got it. So again, we're taking a huge contract and putting that money into the France economy, not the United States economy or Colorado. And then, just so I'm clear, they have operations in New York. And what do the other two have? I think Clear Channel has something based here in Denver. It's Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.

And I'm not sure about Lamar. Where's Lamar based?

So I just also have a problem. Anytime we have these really big contracts, A, I would love to stay local if we can. Put it back into our local economy, because as we all say, is one of the biggest generators of economic generators in the state of Colorado. So I would always really prefer if it stays in the state. I understand that that's not always the possibility. If it doesn't, I would really like to hope to stay in the United States so that we're staying, like, refining art. And I just have a problem, literally, like, I do really do have a problem. with it says right here in the bill request no current goal with the possibility of a not to exceed goal of two percent airport concession disadvantaged business enterprise so in the own bill request it says that i don't feel comfortable passing that until we get that where it doesn't say so council president a specific number not an up to anymore yeah and take away no part goal. Like in the bill request, it should have a goal and not with the possibility of a not to exceed goal. So I would want to postpone this because I don't feel comfortable moving it out, especially knowing that they're based in France and 2% of $183 million. I'm not going to try to do math on the fly. But where's the J.P. Perez Associates at?

Los Angeles. Los Angeles.

Okay. So Madam Chair, I'd like to postpone this until we can figure out the contract to not say with no current goal and with the possibility of a not to exceed.

Yeah, I have that motion on the table. The date that we have available is June 17th. Thank you. June 17th. Would that provide you all sufficient amount of time in order to be able to resolve the request of council members? Absolutely. June 17th. Okay. Do you want to do the official?

Second. Make a motion to have. Hold on just a second. Let me get the bill request.

Where's the bill request number? 26-0755.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to- One second.

We have one. Go ahead. Before the vote, I just want to clarify. The 2%, is 2% of what? Because the 184 million is not money we're spending, it's money we're getting. Getting. This is a revenue contract. Yes. So 2% of what? Of the operations and maintenance? of the subcontractor of the ACDBE firm, the future ACDBE firm?

The future ACDBE firm will get 2% of the sales.

Of the sales? Yes. Okay. That's a hefty amount.

It is.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood what the 2% is of. Is that, we have concurrence? It's 2% of annual revenues?

It's 2% in goods and services. What did you say about?

We'll give you the full finite value for that 2%, what that looks like on those contracts, so you have clarity.

Because it's hard to imagine 2% of the sales would go to a contractor who's doing operations and maintenance.

Right. Let us send you the exact details of the 2% and exactly what the partner will be performing. Can you send that to me? Of course. Thank you.

So to be clear, we're not paying the concessionaire. We're not paying Clear Channel right now. We're not paying Deco for anything. They're giving us money.

Oh, absolutely. They're giving us money.

I like that kind of contract. I do, too.

This is a big one.

Thank you. That's all, Madam Chair. I just needed that clarification.

Wonderful. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion for, is it an ordinance or a resolution? Resolution. Resolution 0755 to move to June 17th. Do you have a motion? Do you have a second?

Second.

Councilman Hines, for your second, can we do a roll call vote?

Councilmember Gilmour?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Just a few things. You may have, several announcements have come out of DEN lately, but last week we spoke about how do we ensure that we have another opportunity should our trains go down. You do have a 99% success rate. However, that 0.1 is a bit of a bugger when it happens. And so we, in conjunction with the airlines, we will be doing passenger tunnels at DEN. Project details are still being sorted out, but construction is expected to begin in 2027. Regarding Pena Boulevard and our NEPA process, we're pleased to announce that we're going to host our second in-person public open house Thursday, July 23rd, 5 to 7 p.m. at the Green Valley Recreation Center. And there will be an online open house available July 13th through the 31st for those who won't be able to, who will not be able to attend. Last week, we opened our park on the Plaza at Den, passenger employee favorite where people can enjoy Colorado's beautiful outdoors before getting on a plane. In addition, we opened our mini golf course and so it's open daily through June 30th from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and it's free. This morning before I came down here, we just had our 35th international destination ribbon cutting with Valeris Airlines, Den to Crete Aero. So they will operate twice weekly. Yes, I'm sorry. I was practicing that couple and I still got it wrong. But that was starting today, operating Wednesday, yes, in Mexico. And that will be operating weekly Wednesdays and Sundays. And if you had not seen the announcement that came out today, our beloved CEO, Phil Washington, unfortunately wants to retire. 60 plus years of public service. And that's absolutely remarkable. We are saddened but thankful for all that he has done for DEN, as I sat in those chairs where you are, as he helped navigate DEN through some challenging times. So we're very thankful for him. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you so much. So much appreciation for Phil. It's been an honor to work and to chair this committee and work with the airport in general, but specifically with Mr. Washington. He's been fearless and just a brilliant mind when it comes to the airport and the operation. So really appreciate his service.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one quick question, and my thanks to Phil for his work. I worked under him at RTD and covered him when I was at the newspaper, and it was a pleasure to cover and work for him and then oversee his work at the airport. But quick, basic elementary question about the tunnels. During the eight-mile walk out to Concourse C, will there be restrooms in the tunnel? for public? Don't answer that. Just say, please, you will add them. There will be opportunities for that. Thank you.

All men over 50. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks for your time.

We're presenting for the Front Range Passenger Room. You all can come up to the seats.

Prepare yourselves for the presentation.

Do you wanna drive?

I hope so.

I hope so.

All right. When you all are ready to go, you can introduce yourselves and we can get started. But before you do, I just want to say I'm so happy you all picked Coco. You know that I really wanted Coco because it just sounds really good. So good job on picking the right name.

I just wondered, do they have to pay royalties to Conan O'Brien?

We'll find out, won't we?

Do we have any more?

We have some more.

I know what you're talking about.

I like it so much.

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sal Pace and I'm the General Manager of the Front Range Passenger Rail District. Passing out the coveted stickers is James Flatham on our staff and I'm joined today by John Putnam, our Board Chair, and he's the most knowledgeable expert I know in transportation. He served before for taking this non-paying position as our board chair, who's the chief legal counsel at USDOT under Pete Buttigieg. And also we have Alva Wedgworth and Sean Walsh in the audience who are part of our front range passenger. Well, rail team, thank you all for the opportunity to provide a briefing. We're really excited to share with you a status update and what we're looking at for the future of COCO for the Front Range, but also For the city and county of Denver. So Coco, actually, the name selected, Colorado Connector, was selected by over 25,000 constituents of the Front Ranch Passenger Rail District. We did not select that name, but the constituents did. And to date, we now have about 40,000 individuals from the Front Range who have opted into our digital program. And that's all been built up over the last four months as we've been doing our outreach and education campaign up and down the Front Range. To give you an idea of what that looks like, last night we were in simultaneous meetings in Loveland and Louisville. and next week we have Longmont, Broomfield, and Fort Collins coming up, and Pueblo. So we're on the constant roadshow as we get around to meet with all of our station communities. The Front Range Passenger Rail District is the legal entity. We are the Title 32 special district that exists for the purpose of planning, operating, constructing, and managing the Colorado Connector Service. It's not dissimilar from many other Title 32 special districts that exist throughout the state that exist for a specific statutory purpose. In this case, it's for delivering service from state line to state line, from Wyoming to New Mexico. The district itself, comprises the metropolitan areas where stations exist or where stations or areas near stations, communities near stations. And actually, the legislature recently passed a cleanup bill that changed our boundaries because when we originally formed in 2021, we did not know the preferred route alignment. There are a couple other route alignments that were being studied. Now that we know the route alignment, the district boundaries were changed to reflect the route alignment as opposed to the broader swath that included a lot of, I'd say a couple million people who were pretty far away from a station. We're working on a phased approach to delivery. Phase one is a partnership with RTD and the state of Colorado. The funding is in place for phase one. The reason RTD is participating is RTD had an obligation or still has an obligation until we wrap up this project for delivering rail as part of the fast tracks project. It's been an albatross over the necks of RTD for 20 years having uncompleted fast tracks and in this case We fully recognize RTD's financial struggles and their operating loss right now. All of the dollars that they have committed to this project are part of their fast track savings account and our one time capital dollars intended to address their their fast tracks obligations. And so what we're providing with a partnership with RTD is a much more affordable way for them to deliver rail service in a partnership with us in the state of Colorado to complete the northwest line up through Boulder and up to Longmont. After that, In order to complete full build-out, we'll need a new revenue source, and that's why we have a Title 32 special district. And we are looking at potentially running a ballot measure that would allow us to deploy Phases 2 through 5 in our development plan. Phase 2 would assured services to all of the stations on the alignment within five years of passage, and we would be deploying a local return program to local communities that we'll talk a little bit further about, as well as building capacity up to 10 round trips on the full corridor.

And Sal, real quickly, just to add on, and I think you'll show this in a map that will come pretty soon. The Fast Tracks promise was to go from Denver to Longmont. With the state money, we're actually able to go to Loveland and Fort Collins as well. So in 2029, we'll have trains that will center in Union Station going all the way up to Fort Collins.

So a quick descriptor of intercity passenger rail versus commuter rail. We fall under the Federal Railroad Administration, the FRA versus a federal transit for commuter rail. It is a different characteristic of service. We are intended to be longer distance between the stations and a faster speed and a more express service as opposed to commuter rail, which is shorter distances and intended for getting people from home to work. And what we've seen nationally is a decline in ridership with commuter rail. As we've seen the work habits change since COVID. Meanwhile, intercity passenger rail has been seeing a bit of a boon across the country.

And CDOT's been seeing the same thing with Bustang, vis-a-vis some of the, you know, service within RTD. That service has been exploding north, south, and into the mountains as well.

Joint service at a glance. Joint service is the starter service of the first three round trips per day from Denver up to Fort Collins. RTD providing funding for Denver through Longmont and the state providing the funding from Longmont up to Loveland and Fort Collins. This will be up and running within three years by January of 2029. and we'll be servicing eight stations at a speed of 79 miles an hour. And this does not necessitate any additional funding. The funding is already secure for phase one. Phase two with the full-service build-out, this contemplates 12 Colorado conductor COCO stations, one additional station on the Southwest Chief Route in Trinidad and Southern Colorado. The full build-out for Phases one through five, which this contemplates, will be from Pueblo to Fort Collins, including stations in Colorado Springs, Douglas County, Littleton, on the south in addition to the eight to the north, and contemplated full build out at 10 round trips. We have taken a unique approach and a novel approach to doing, providing service. A prime example is the term sheet that was signed with BNSF. Historically, as states have contemplated passenger rail. Typically what happens is a state will go in contract with Amtrak and utilizing their authorities and their powers under the Surface Transportation Act, they use a power called 209 service. where they can essentially force their way onto freight railroad lines. The freight railroads received a lot of incentives in the 19th century to build out to the west, and as part of receiving those incentives, they agreed to make their corridors available to passenger rail, or the federal government told them their corridors would be available for passenger rail. The freight companies consider this a contentious process. So we, as Front Range Rail, negotiating with RTD and the state, worked out an agreement with BNSF that is outside of the typical 209 process and a direct contract with BNSF for our starter service to the north. This is a novel approach where BNSF is our contractor. and from there bnsf will be contracting with amtrak to be the service provider for the starter service this flips the traditional model upside down bnsf is a true partner in this process up to the north and in the term sheet it's contemplated that they will receive 50 percent greater uh remuneration for meeting on time performance metrics. So they have a financial stake, a real financial stake in helping us have a successful service. I think the reasons for COCO are pretty intuitive. Denver residents are now losing two full work weeks a year stuck in traffic within your community. It impacts air quality when you're sitting in traffic jams. And the cost of fuel is going up by 2024 calculations. Denver residents were losing $1,700 annually being stuck in traffic jams. The cost of fuel and time and other financial impacts. Now we know with the war in Iran and skyrocketing gas costs that these numbers are going to be well over $2,000 annually. for the average commuter in Denver. Colorado Conductor will be a comfortable ride, again, intercity rail versus commuter rail. We're hoping to utilize the newest equipment available for Rolling Stock, the Siemens Aero, which was actually just passing through Denver a couple days ago to go get tested down in Pueblo at the test tracks. It's the newest equipment on the market. We'll have reclining chairs, restrooms, cafe cars, etc. Ticketing staff, making sure that everyone is ticketed on the ride. Again, this is for intercity service as opposed to commuter service. I think especially on this committee we all understand the economic impacts of infrastructure spending and the multiplier effect and with fixed rail we know that there is a huge benefit to real estate and commercial activity around a fixed rail station. Something that the press has been paying attention to the last 48 hours, we have been talking with the Broncos and also staff at the city exploring a special event stop at the new Bronco Stadium. as well as looking at South Broadway for Denver Summit and also the natural transit connectivity there as well. In both of these cases, we would be looking at the lowest cost option for platforms. and for connectivity. And these would be intended to be special event stops for high frequency or high attended events. And as opposed to putting new sidings where trains would be pulling off, what we would be doing is changing the schedules of the trains for these very high frequency events. You know, I imagine That Sunday will naturally be sort of the lowest ridership days anyhow, and so we would change the timetables for those high-frequency events to get the riders back to Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Fort Collins and around the state. We have spent four years on a development plan modeled out with the host railroads, Union Pacific and BNSF. And full disclosure, these special event stops have been discussed, but they have not been workshopped fully. So we still need to have the host railroads sign off on the special event stops, but they are aware of them. We are proposing a program that actually Phil Washington gave the nomenclature to me for. He said call it local return. He said he called this local return in Los Angeles when he was running a ballot issue there and so what we're proposing is deploying a little less than 20% of the tax revenue that is collected and send it back to the local municipalities for the purpose of station development, TODs, first mile, last mile connectivity, and any other infrastructure necessities of a local community around a station. The concept here is we think that local municipalities have a better idea of their transportation needs and infrastructure needs and planning needs than an almost statewide special district. And so we are modeling out several different iterations on what this means for the city and county of Denver. But what we're talking about is in the nine digits that we'll be sending back to Denver for the purpose of supporting local infrastructure in the station areas.

Yes, we conclude this committee at 3 o'clock and just want to make sure folks have time for questions as well. That sounds good. I'll wrap up in 3 minutes.

Thank you. We are involved in, as we're looking at a potential 2026 ballot question, we're involved in stakeholder engagement. As I mentioned, 40,000 people have signed up to get updates about. the district and Colorado connector and I see 20 or 30 folks who showed up today who have asked to be informed whenever we're doing anything in public in the city and county of Denver. And we're seeing the same type of interest and engagement up and down the district. In fact, we've had three or four town hall meetings that we've hosted that have been over 300 people in attendance. And I think I'll conclude with saying Denver is the hub. of this system. The modeling for the service shows that More people will be traveling to Denver than any other station. And we'll be putting a quarter million new people into downtown Denver on the low end in our models. And these are people who otherwise would not be coming into Denver. or would be coming in and bringing their vehicles and filling up the streets and creating more traffic congestion in the city and county of Denver in a community that already has lots of parking and other infrastructure needs. But it's not just people coming into Denver. Denver also models out as one of the top stations of origin as well. And I think it's because Denver has the highest ratio of residents without vehicles. And if you think of your residents who have cousins in Pueblo or aunts and uncles in Fort Collins or a kid at school at CU Boulder, this is going to be a more comfortable way to travel than hopping on the interstate or the road. So we see Denver as the hub. We're excited about Denver Union Station receiving all of the riders and then from there, Mountain Rail is going to be up and running in a year from now, connecting to the western slope out of Denver Union Station. We already know that there's a great ride from DUS to DIA on the A line as well. John and I are happy to take any questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation. With that, I'll go directly to the queue. Councilwoman Alvidrez, you're in the queue first, followed by Councilwoman Hines. And maybe we can limit it to two questions, but we can come back around.

I definitely need another briefing on this, limiting it to two questions. But I will say one of my questions around the local return is could these funds be used for quiet zones and rail safety improvements? I have a lot of this rail will go through my district, probably most of it, as far as for the city of Denver's piece. And so that's a big concern I have for them. I am very excited. We want the rail. Just want to start with that, but that is a concern.

Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman. I would not preclude it for those purposes. I do hope and I believe that we are modeling covering a lot of rail safety infrastructure improvements ourselves. And so some of those improvement costs would be borne by the district and not by the city and county.

Or the local return. Or the local. OK. And then I know one of the other questions I have is about there is a current potential merger with Union Pacific. And my understanding is you would need Union Pacific to go down to Pueblo. And so I'm curious how we're having that conversation and how that impacts getting down south.

I'm happy to take that one. Thank you Councilwoman. So we're in regular communications with both UP and Burlington Northern Santa Fe who is opposing the merger. So we are working to try to work with both to seek that access down south. We do know that UP has to put their best foot forward right now to secure approval of that merger next year, which means I think we're at a particularly good time to be having these conversations because I think they want to appear as receptive as possible, and they have been a good partner to the state with some of the Moffitt Tunnel and other negotiations. So, you know, we are hopeful, but as you know from working with the railroads, it takes work, and they're tough people across the table.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Councilman Hyde.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a value statement. I think that an ideal private market would have multiple companies competing against each other so that customers win. When that isn't possible, I think there's a role for government and I think we as government have certain fundamental responsibilities and making sure that people can get around is one of those fundamental responsibilities. So I'm glad that we're considering government and making sure that people can get around, particularly without cars. Two questions. One, how easy is it to get front range passenger rail into and out of Union Station? Are there slow, quiet zones? Are there turns that limit that in and out?

Great question, and thank you for the question, Councilman. Just on your value statement, we agree completely, which is why we are looking at private partners as well to help us provide the best service, maximize the return from our money. And we've talked to Amtrak. Talk to other operators and think over time. There may be some opportunities there to leverage opportunities on the question about getting into Union Station from the north. We're actually working with RTD to use the existing B and G line infrastructure, which helps us. jump over some of the freight infrastructure north and west, which will help us avoid some of the level crossings, some of the congestion in those areas, and also it does help out the freight railroads to kind of de-conflict those pieces. So we actually think we have pretty good solution that we're working on with RTD and the railroads on that front. To the south, we'll need to build a little bit just to be able to kind of curve down out of Union Station. If you're leaving the station to head down south, if you've got a curve like that, we're not going to be going at 79 miles an hour through that zone. But we think it's a fairly straightforward approach and that's been discussed with the railroads in terms of what types of infrastructure is needed to provide that.

Yeah, I've heard some, and actually I want to thank you for engaging the legislative branch. I think the first time I'd heard of front page passenger rail, the two contacts with the city were both mayoral appointees, and so thanks for, as the person who represents Union Station, I'm glad that we're part of the conversation. But I'd heard that there was a, Logistical hassle of getting into and out of union station, but it is definitely, I believe the right spot in Denver. If you're going to pick any 1 spot in the state of Colorado to have a. Train stop union stations the right 1.

And I'll just know real quick on that front councilman, you know, we want to connect in with services. With the downtown, because we know that's where a lot of people will want to come from and go to and then connect out to the community. You know, we're creating a line, but this line is only as good as it kind of weaves into the fabric of the city in the region. So we're really interested in viewing that connectivity.

Second and last question, the entire route from Wyoming to New Mexico, there are some areas where there's just one track. Where are those, I thought the hassle was more south of Denver, but where are those spots where the number of tracks is a limiting factor and will we need to get a second track to realize 10 round trips a day?

It's a great question and just on the first part of your question, Councilman, from Denver to Fort Collins and then up to the Wyoming border is single track. And then south of Denver, when you get to Palmer Lake at the top of the Monument Divide, two tracks become one through Colorado Springs and then turn into two down to Pueblo and then south of Pueblo, you're back to a single track. Um, arrangement, so the 2nd, part of your question, part of why we're looking at 10 round trips is kind of what we're planning for as a ceiling at this point is that reflects what we can accomplish. With the existing infrastructure with additional sidings, crossovers, other sort of infrastructure. Um, you know, if we look for more than that, we probably would need to be looking at either separated lines or more double tracking. Um, and the price would go up considerably, you know, if we were able to achieve success, which we very much think we will be able to, um, you know, we hope to be able to get to that at some point, but are really looking at a. Deliberately incremental and, um, uh, deliverable approach that allows us to kind of. minimize risk as we move along and take it in steps that will meet demand.

And I'll add to that. Part of our modeling includes adding some double track in some certain locations. And that, you know, Monument Hill, it's going to be slow going uphill for the freight traffic in particular. That needs to be double tracked. We're contemplating double track through Air Force Academy and through downtown Colorado Springs. We're getting a lot of savings by leasing the existing trackage and right-of-way, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to add some additional track in some locations to address the slower moving traffic. And earlier when I was naming everyone on the team who is here, I forgot to and I neglected to mention Chris Nevitt, who's our board vice chair and sitting over there. So I apologize to one of my bosses for missing this recognition.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Council President.

Thank you. Thank you. This is so exciting to have get all of the When I was working for Councilwoman Montero, we had BNSF go through her council district and we always said there was the rails, then there was God, then there was the United States government. Like literally like to get this accomplished is phenomenal, so bravo. My one question is what does the ballot question say? Has it been formulated? I can't find it anywhere. I've been sitting here Googling it and looking at it and I can't find it.

We have not produced a public facing ballot question yet. We have till August to do that. Okay. And John and I and several others have been engaged in some endless financial modeling. We do know all the capital costs that have been workshopped over the last four years with the class one railroads and with the FRA. And in some cases, it's literally moving a project from one phase to another because we have a real goal and objective to have a service status every single station within five years. What we are currently modeling is a third of a penny for a tax rate. For sales tax? Yeah, for sales tax, correct.

And that's statewide, it'd be in the district and remind me district boundaries either. I've been sitting here trying to Google all of this.

Well, and the district boundaries did just change a week ago. So the district boundaries now include about. 20 or 25 municipalities up and down the Front Range. We will email you their full district breakdown. And it includes 2.5 million residents of Colorado out of a little less than 6 million residents. So a little less than half of the state.

Okay. And remind me the deadline for the ballot.

Our deadline is the beginning of September. We have circled on our calendar, our August board meeting for referring a ballot question. And we would be bringing ballot language to committees in the middle of August internally. When we start sharing ballot language publicly, we're told by our legal staff to comply with the Fair Campaign Practices Act that we need to stop this roadshow. And then... Yeah, so we'll stop communicating as a district. A campaign committee will be set up and... Yeah, so...

Is it the state legislature that refers the ballot?

We have a special district that is comprised by appointees primarily from MPOs. And so Vice Chair Nevitt is an appointee of Dr. Cogg, for instance. And there are several different constituencies who are required to be appointed. represented on the district.

Okay, awesome. Thank you Madam Chair. I know I added two and a half. It's okay. I added it for honorable Cashman.

That's right, yes. So one of the questions I had was about the considerations for whether or not you all would bring a ballot question. But it sounds like that you all have plans to bring a ballot question, so it's not necessarily what you all would consider. It's just a matter of what the language eventually looks like.

Madam Chair, we have not determined as a board. In fact, we haven't even taken a straw poll. Okay. My job, and I think this, the handout we provided you says phase two ballot access plan. We built out a three phase program to get us ready to refer a ballot question, each one with a go, no go inflection point. We just wrapped up what we called our phase one of our ballot access plan and we met all of our metrics and so now we're in phase two. If we meet all of our metrics in phase two, then we'll go to phase three and then potentially referring a ballot question in August. If I were to tell you that we had made a decision, that would not be accurate.

Okay. I appreciate that clarity. And then the second is as a recovering and maybe never will be recovered RTD director. We've had a lot of conversations about building out fast tracks and if we went to the ballot with the right amount of money or whatever that might be. And so I'm just curious as to how you all are thinking about hopefully the lessons learned from RTD to build out fast tracks and what you all are putting in place to avoid some of those things.

I would say from the very beginning with our enabling legislation that FastTrack's inability to complete the commitments were front and center of every single decision that was made. Beautiful. And starting with a long checklist of criteria that we have to meet before we refer a ballot question. One of them is getting public input on our delivery plan, as well as certifying that we have done all the work possible to chase all the dollars possible that we can go after, as well as a financial and a delivery plan showing exactly every single dollar coming in and every capital project going out. So versus fast tracks, we have already modeled out every single capital project. along the corridor. And we know exactly where there's a need for a siding or a new double track, for instance. And that has already been workshopped with the Class 1 railroads and FRA at the table. Beyond that, versus fast tracks, we have a single route and a single route alignment. And so there'll never be a situation where one constituency can push for one route over another route. I live in Pueblo. I don't get service in Pueblo until Colorado Springs gets service because we're all on the same southern route alignment. With our financial modeling, what we've learned and what we've determined is it's critically important that we be able to deliver service to all of the stations within five years and that is a stated goal and mission with everything we're doing and then we build capacity from there. So everyone will receive service. The final piece is we have a signed term sheet with the host railroad with BNSF for the starter service to the north when we workshop all the costs with BNSF and Union Pacific to the south. And so we are not going to be passing something based on a vision and then after that then negotiate the terms of the service. We already have something inked with the Class 1 railroads.

Beautiful. Thank you so much. And before I turn it over to Councilwoman Alvidrez, I really appreciate that you all talked about the double track considerations because I was worried about just the single track. Again, as a recovering RTD director. Councilwoman Alvidrez.

Thanks. I'll just add one more question. You mentioned going from Fort Collins to Pueblo, but then you're mentioning going from New Mexico to Wyoming. So which is it and what is that going to look like? Because I anticipate when it goes down to potentially Trinidad, Trinidad and Raton also wanting maybe a stop. And so curious about what that looks like.

So what we are bringing to the voters this November, what we would contemplate bringing to the voters this November would be service from Fort Collins to Pueblo. Our board also has representatives from Wyoming and New Mexico sitting on it. And really exciting, just two weeks ago, New Mexico released their long-term passenger rail plan that includes a connection to Colorado Connector. Pueblo to Trinidad is a lot of expense. The great news is that when we connect to Trinidad, the infrastructure is there to the south to get all the way to Albuquerque and actually Los Angeles. New Mexico purchased the rail. 30 years ago from BNSF, Raton Pass South. And so the host railroad there is the state of New Mexico. And actually from Raton Pass all the way to Lamy, New Mexico, the only rail traffic on there is passenger rail. There's no freight and service on there anymore. New Mexico was able to get this done. They created the rail runner. Bill Richardson was able to do it in three years. which makes me question the last 15 years of my life. But when we hit Trinidad, it's a great connection all the way to Los Angeles. I will add Trinidad is in the district. And we are proposing providing the local return to Trinidad for placing the station on their existing Southwest Chief line. They're on the Chicago to Los Angeles line in Trinidad. And CDOT tore down their station about 25 years ago to widen I-25 and never replaced it. And so if we pass this ballot measure, we'll be sending Trinidad about $35 million to replace that station. We met with the mayor and city manager and senior leadership of Trinidad and we said, We're redrawing the district. Do you want to be in it knowing you're not going to get front range service for a minimum of 25 years or until we get a new president and potentially get federal dollars again? But we could help you with replacing your station. They said we want to remain in it. And thank you. We want to replace that station.

I'll just quickly note, Councilwoman, in addition to just direct rail service, we are working with CDOT to try to coordinate Bustang Outriders Service, which does go to Trinidad, goes to Lamar and La Junta and some of those other communities, and thinking about those connectivity. And we'll explore those similar approaches from Fort Collins North up to Cheyenne as well.

Thank you so much for the presentation. We really appreciate it and council members can reach out directly if you all require additional information. With that, we have three items on consent. No one has called it out and we are adjourned.