Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

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

of chairing the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today. Excited about several presentations, but I'd like to start with allowing your colleagues to introduce themselves. Council President, would you like to start? Sure, thank you.

Good afternoon. Diana Romero-Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4. Chantel Lewis, District 8.

Stacey Gilmore, District 11. Chris Hines, Denver's Perfect 10.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2.

And as of now, we have no council members on Zoom. Thank you to the airport for being here for our first presentation about lease agreements. You want to introduce your team and take it away?

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Dave Laporte. I'm the interim CEO for Denver International Airport. I'm joined today by Chris Herndon and George Karianakis as part of our team. We are here today to introduce 10 use and lease agreements for airlines for signatory agreements at the Denver International Airport. We have a total of four airlines that have long-term agreements. Those are our largest carriers, our four largest carriers. The balance 17 carriers have use and lease agreements that expire at the end of this year. And so we have to negotiate and introduce those. Traditionally, we have brought those in batches to City Council. There are a total of 16 that we will be introducing. 10 of those are today, though, so it won't be all 16 today. We have a short presentation that Chris Herndon is going to walk us through.

Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Madam Chair and Seniors Councilmembers for being here. I'm going to walk you through our ask today that you would send these 10 use and lease agreements to the full Council for consideration. And I'll say for moving forward, I'll say ULA, so I don't have to say use and lease agreement every time. The 10 that we're bringing forward to you for these signature air, signatory air carriers, their current ULAs will expire at the end of this year. What we're asking for with these terms will be three years total beginning January 1st, 2027, each being one year with the option to do two one-year extensions based at the city's discretion. Rates and charges will apply and I'll explain how much revenue we've raised from use and lease agreements later on. These are the list of the 10 carriers that we're asking you to move forward to the full council. Air France, Iceland Air, Lufthansa, Turkish Airlines, WestJet, Key Lime, Air Canada, Cayman Airlines, Copa, and Alaskan Airlines. Next slide, please. Just as some background, DEN is required by the FAA to allow any carrier who wishes to operate at the airport to be able to do so, and we do that in several different ways. One of those ways are through use and lease agreements. So all carriers at DEN have the choice to sign the ULA and become signatory, offering them the opportunity to have preferential gate access, and they will pay reduced rates and charges. Our domestic air carriers can generally become signatory by leasing space at the airport and to agreeing to operate a minimum number of flights over a particular period of time. Our foreign air carriers, they can become signatory at DIN without any operating or lease requirements. And air carriers that do not meet those requirements or they choose not to become signatory, they can still operate via a permit at DIN. The ULA has defined the business terms of relationship between the air carriers, DEN, since our aircraft is opened. And our largest fork carriers have long-term leases at DEN. United Airlines, their current lease goes through February of 2035. Southwest Airlines, the same February of 2035. In 2022, Frontier Airlines extended their ULA to September of 2034. And this body improved Delta Airlines to go through February of 2035 as well. So those are our four long-term carriers with the use and lead agreements. And the remaining 17 that we will bring to you have short-term ULAs, but we're only going to bring you 16, and I'll speak to that later in this presentation. So as part of Vision 100, the ULA contracts align with our pillar of how do we expand our global connections. We wish to provide every opportunity for carriers to take advantage of the ULAs to please do so. We do value these contracts as they illustrate our commitment to these carriers in Denver, as well as our overarching economic development and opportunity to serve the global community. DEN has served 4.8 million international passengers in 2025, our highest total on record. In these contractual lease and payment terms, they provide stability for airline revenues and instill confidence from the rating agencies and the bondholders in DEN's financial future. And as you can see, in 2025, $471.9 million in facility rentals and $231 million in landing fees we generated through our use and lease agreements. So in conclusion, over the course of the end of this year, we're going to bring a total of 16 ULAs to city council. We have the 10 before you right now. There will be six more that will be coming later this year. And sadly, we will not be bringing forward Aer Lingus as they chose not to extend coverage Denver to Dublin in 2027. So we are bringing 10 batches to you now, 10 more we believe will be coming towards the end of this year. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much for that very brief presentation. I'm straight to the point. I only have one council member in the queue, Councilman Flynn.

Was that me?

You also, okay. Yes, that was you, Councilman Flynn.

Oh, Aer Lingus. I'm sorry to see that go because Dublin is where I'd like to go being a Flynn. But why, I know it was low performing. I looked into their press release and they're eliminating low performing long hauls. Was there any city airport money that was subsidizing that route that is recoverable or have they gone beyond that period?

Thank you, Councilman Flynn. They have fulfilled the terms of the incentive that you all passed before they started. Yes. So there's no clawback provision for the incentive dollars.

Thank you, Chair. I know that's not in the package, but I just wanted to understand that better. Thank you. Great.

Councilwoman Gilmour. Thank you, Madam Chair. What happens if this committee doesn't pass these out today?

If the committee does not pass the use and lease agreements, the airline will become non-signatory, which means that they can still operate at the airport. They will still operate at the airport. They will pay a higher rate for operating at the airport.

What's the higher rate?

25%.

That seems like a moneymaker. If we don't approve this, I know that you'd be in crosshairs of FAA, but wouldn't that beg the question of bringing the airline executives together to ensure passenger safety on city and county of Denver property, i.e. Denver International Airport?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I'm not sure I understood your question.

If this council doesn't approve these, it sounds like the air carriers would have to pay 25% more. Correct. That seems like a good money maker for the airport since there's been so much question about the 92 million in question with the FAA grants of us voting down Key Lime. If they have to pay 25% more, it seems like a good moneymaker for you all. And so I guess my question to you is, how are you going to manage the FAA and the issues that if this council doesn't approve these, what are your proactive steps to bring people together to discuss this?

Of course we would have conversations with them about that. Now I should say that it's important to know that FAA does not allow us to discriminate against any carrier. And that's where these four long-term leases come into effect. We have four long-term signatory air carrier agreements. If these carriers want to operate under a signatory agreement, because we have the four long-term leases, we have to provide that opportunity to these other carriers as well. So if they don't, I suspect that we will have a Part 16 violation for each one of those that's not approved by the FAA. And of course, we'll have to come together and talk to those folks about that.

Okay. And I guess does the FAA send you a letter and want to know why the council didn't approve them or what's the process? They do.

They will initiate an investigation and you may be familiar with that. We have a part 16 violation that's being investigated now at the airport. They have 120 days after we submit all evidence that they've asked for to get back to us and they'll make a decision on if we actually have a Part 16 violation.

Okay. Thank you for that. And my second question or line of questioning is if this goes to the floor. Well, no, let me back up. If this doesn't move out of committee and stays here, at what point, because you'll be up against the 30-day shot clock, will Mayor Johnston have to take action or can he take action on this resolution without council's vote?

I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that. If he can take action.

Yes. But maybe we need to ask the attorneys. Is that okay if we ask? Can we ask?

Lori or some, oh, I see John.

John can hobble over to the mic. Can you repeat the question again?

Uh, city council chooses not to take any action on this, or we hold it in committee, or we decide not to move it forward. What action made the mayor take Jonathan Griffin deputy legislative council.

If it's not moved out of committee, it's not filed. So there's the shot clock wouldn't kick in. So, until it's filed for action, that's where the shot clock kicks in.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your questions. Does anybody else want to get in the queue? Councilman Hines.

I believe this is ready for the full body and we'll support it moving forward. Thank you.

Do you want to make a motion?

I move to move this. I move this forward to the full body in a block.

Do you have a second? Do I need to do a roll call vote? Yes. Can we do a roll call?

We have a bit of discussion. We've had a motion and a second. And the lawyers can, is there a possibility to have a bit more discussion?

Do we want to go back in the queue? Okay, because nobody else was in the queue.

No, no, I mean, it's great. There's a motion and a second on the floor, but if it's on the table, if we could have discussion.

I would probably be more comfortable if we weren't moving these forward in a block, if we had the opportunity to be able to vote on these individually versus as a block, but if we must vote on these in a block. Then then you would need a roll call vote But I do think that there's some merit to us holding this in committee so that the shot clock doesn't start if we have some answers and you all know that there are a number of things that we have still gone and answered such as the conversation we had about the videos or what you all might be able to do in terms of accountability and those are still unanswered. Those are things that you all are still working on and so without having those in place it doesn't feel like it is actually ready for the floor because you all have some work to do in order to be able to give council some information on our end to be able to move these forward.

Councilwoman Gilmour, did you have other thoughts that you wanted to add?

Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate it. I am totally fine with these being on a block. I guess that might possibly put the airport at some greater risk, not being able to have us parse these out. But the motion is on the floor, so just wanted to call that out as far as rules of procedure. And then I would like to put on the record for today why I am adamantly opposed to at least Key Lime, but now I'll just speak to the whole block because they're all on the floor that way, but I believe that we as a city and county of Denver, especially the airport, is culpable. We are fully aware that we are allowing people's constitutional rights to be violated. We are fully aware that employees out at the airport, concessionaires, vendors, the public are not as safe as they should be because of the threat of ice. I don't have a timeline on the cameras. I don't have a timeline on the badging that we talked about, Dave, as far as the badges identifying somebody from the Department of Homeland Security. There are numerous concerns, but at the end of the day, people were helping facilitate. being put on flights, flown around the country with zero tracking of them. there is no way that I can support moving this forward nor voting on it. Thank you for allowing me to put my comments on the record, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Council President? Can I ask Den to clarify? So earlier I was asked if this is not passed, what does that mean for the airport? What does it mean specifically to what was raised about ICE flights or people who are being detained? These are passed and if they aren't passed a little bit about what impact that has on those flights.

Yeah, that's a good question. Thank you for that. So, at the end of the day, those flights will still operate, whether these are passed or not the ice. flights that we are referring to happen out of signature. The use and lease agreement that we're talking about is for Denver Air Connection, which offers scheduled service out of the concourses. If these are not passed, we have no ability to stop those flights from happening, as much as I would like to. But I am not able to stop those flights from happening because of federal law.

Um, if, if that is the case, then, um, there was an ordinance put in place, um, to be able to address or hold accountable. Can you talk or speak to a little bit of what that, of what that is and what that relationship is for the airport?

Yes. So, uh, if the airport becomes aware that that ordinance was violated, we can take action against that carrier. Now, I will say that this is unprecedented. We have not seen another airport go through this, so there are still a number of things that we would have to discuss and strategize on how we would do that. But your action in that ordinance does allow us to hold them accountable.

Thank you. And I didn't say that in my initial comments, but thank you for Councilwoman on that ordinance. I have another question about the, so some things were mentioned for accountability and transparency. Are those, can we talk about those? Can I, attorneys, can I talk about that?

John, is there any limitation to talking about... Can I talk about the... I would just caution you, Council President.

I just want to make sure that... Are there any issues that we have of talking about transparency?

Sure, of course you can ask questions. I think the questions you might be thinking of are potential policy or operations changes. You can certainly ask questions about those. Those exist outside of any other conversations that may be protected. So you can certainly do that. If you find you're getting into a conversation that needs to be protected or was previously protected, we can address that when we come to it.

Does that make sense? Yes. Oh, and by the way, Lori Simonson, legislative council. Thank you, Lori. Thank you. So, you know, the measure that we look at for committee is, is it ready to be heard by the full body? From what I've seen, I think that this is, by the measure that we do in committee, I believe that it is ready to be heard by the full body, have a full council vote on that. I do think that without going into detail, is there a commitment to be able to come back to us before this goes to the full body with specific dates on additional transparency that the airport's working on?

Yes, and to that point, you're correct. We are working on ways to monitor that activity and to be able to report out on that. Now again, this is unprecedented, except at a large hub airport, it's unprecedented. There is one small airport up in Washington State that has taken some measures that we have been exploring. Certainly, we will come back to you and report out on that before it goes to full vote. If that's what you would like. I don't know that I can give specific dates on everything that we're thinking about, but I can bring more clarity to to some of the things that we're thinking about.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lewis.

Yeah, I. For me, that discussion actually gives It makes me feel like we need to actually delay because we don't have the answers that we need. You all don't have the dates that you all would be able to come back and give us information about what that tracking looks like, what the accountability metrics look like, how you are going to be working with other agencies, what that information looks like coming back to council. You just said so yourself that there was an opportunity for us to build out further regulation that doesn't violate federal law. In addition to that, that isn't preempted like the cameras that we had discussed. And so I'm not sure how anyone comes to the conclusion at this table that this is ready to go to the full council if we have those outstanding questions.

Councilman Hines, are you keeping your, did you have comments to that? I know you were also in the queue.

Yeah, I just, the reason why I made the motion is that there are members of council who are not members of this committee that I think should have the opportunity to weigh in. And so that's why I think because we've had multiple conversations about the topic, And so by saying I think it's ready for the full body, I think that there are members who aren't here who also should have the opportunity to discuss. So that's why I think it's ready for the full body.

And I do have a question for my colleagues around I know there's one carrier that has been mentioned more than others. I'm sure several of these carriers have participated in immigration flights. And so is it, you know, do we want to move these as a block with whatever we do, or do we want to separate them out? Because from my perspective, I'll just say I'm pretty sure most airlines are participating in ICE flights, but if you want to separate out one, that's also fine.

You can move them as a block. My discussion here is that I just do not think that this is ready for the floor. And I think the important piece, in addition to the 25% that we just learned at this table, again, we're in committee learning additional information. Also, committee members are not barred from attending TNI. Any of them could come and hear this presentation before it comes to the floor, but we just don't have the information that we need in order to make an informed decision, and this feels a bit rushed. And going back to the conversation about the shot clock, if we pass this at a committee and then it is then filed, then you have the opportunity for someone to delay it, and then it just runs out and city council never gets a vote. And so I just, I feel strongly that this is not ready, that we should delay it to give an opportunity for other council members to be able to have an opinion about it, for you all to be able to get the information that you need to work with the departments that you need to be able to do. And we are well ahead of the deadline that you all have laid out in that presentation. just earlier and so i think we have time to be able to engage the right folks in this conversation to make sure our communities feel protected um if we don't if we don't have to rush this and so i appreciate your motion um and i reject it respectfully so we have uh a motion and a second should we go ahead questions go for it back in the queue

Thank you. The way the shot clock works, actually, that would not happen because our council rules prohibit us from delaying an item beyond the 30 days. So we would have to take a vote. The rules say you can't delay a 3.6 item.

I appreciate that. Can we get confirmation from our legal team on that? Please tell them.

No single member, Jonathan Griffin, Deputy Legislative Council, no single member is allowed under 3.6 to delay to extend it past the shot clock. However, the body can vote under a motion to delay to any date certain, and there's no restriction on that. But in that case, the body voting would essentially be the same thing. I would need to look again, but 3.6 only specifically covers an individual to extend the week without taking a motion. Motions are generally allowed to any date because it's a vote of the body. So 3.6 is there exclusively as a member's prerogative.

And I'm not talking about 3.6. I'm talking about a rule that said that no 3.6, no charter 3 point whatever, the thing at 326 can be delayed beyond the expiration of the shot clock. Is that not in there anymore?

I'm not aware of that provision. I will look and I can report back.

Thank you. Can you stay up there, John? Sure. Councilman Hines was in the queue, I think. Sorry, go ahead.

I also had a question for the attorney. If we pass it out of committee, that is not when the shot clock starts. It is the Thursday before council when it is scheduled. That's when the shot clock starts. Is that correct? So if we pass it out of committee, we don't have to have this in front of... near council next week and in front of the full council the week after and the shot clock doesn't start until it's filed and that shot clock starts the Thursday before it is calendared for the full body. So the nature of the question is we can pass it out of committee and still have more time before it's heard before the full council. Is that correct? Yes. Before the shot clock starts.

Once it is filed, it has to be heard at the last meeting, but there's no requirement that it is filed if there's decided to be a time between.

Thank you. Thank you, committee chair.

Councilwoman Lewis. If you could just... Go on. I'm sorry. I'm trying to catch you before you go over. I'm sorry. So, I understand the question that Councilman Hines just raised about it being filed. Who would determine when it is filed?

Um... I mean, by process, it's usually just the mayor's office submits. I believe under our rules, the council president has to approve all filings, even though, as you know, that's usually just an automated process. But there would be the ability to not file, I believe. I would need to look a little bit closer just because that's something that, frankly, has just happened as a matter of routine that it goes to mayor council. unless it's being asked to be held, which usually comes from the administration side of, say, the contract wasn't fully ready or for some other reason. But I'd have to look at our rules to see who formally approves all filings. Or Lori might have it.

So, Councilmember Lori Simonson, Legislative Council. Councilmember Lewis, is your question the exact point in time in our process when it is considered filed?

That would start the shot clock.

It's my understanding it's at the point where it is submitted to the secretary. So once it's been approved as to form by the attorneys and signed by the council president, once it's filed with the mayor's office.

And that process from here today, so we pass it out of T&I and then what? T&I.

Can I ask one? T&I. Correct. I mean, do you want to explain the sequence to me?

Well, I mean, just generally to answer your question, we don't know what happens. The normal course of business is that it's passed out of committee, it goes to mayor council the next week, and then is filed for the floor the following week. However, routinely, things are held one way or another. During municipal sentencing, you'll remember that it passed out of committee and then was held for, I believe, three or four weeks before it actually made its way to the floor. So there's not a specific thing, but the routine course of business is usually things are filed, things are passed out of committee, things are heard at Mayor Council the following week, and then things are filed for the floor that Thursday and heard that Monday.

Is there anyone here from the Mayor's Office then?

We have Dominic Moreno. Please come to the mic. Even though I just said your name, introduce yourself. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Members, Dominic Moreno, Mayor's Office.

or could you speak on behalf of the mayor's office that you all would make a commitment to delay it until we were able to get the information from the airport and the information that city council members have requested?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. We definitely want to make sure that City Council has the information that they need to feel ready to vote on any contract, whether that's this or something else. So we would definitely consider that. We would talk to Council leadership about that and figure that out.

Thank you so much, Dominic. I appreciate it. Consideration is not a commitment. And so we're still in the same place. Can you talk to me quickly about what happens if it were to be delayed? We pass it out of committee. It is then delayed if the shot clock runs out before council members can vote on it. What then happens?

So there's John McGregor from Deputy Legislative Council. You never know when, since I'm trying to stand up here so I'm not moving around. But anyways, so there's no way for a bill that I can think of or for a resolution to not be voted on after filing in some manner due to the procedural requirement that a bill once filed has to be heard at the next council meeting, the 30-day shot clock. even if there was a holiday or anything involved, and even with 3.6 ability to delay one extra week without a vote, that still puts you at 21 days where council would have to take action in some sort of way. Council, again, by motion could move it past the shot clock deadline, which for all intents and purposes acts as a way for the bill to pass without council's approval. But There's no way for a bill to not take action. Council also has in the past, if a bill was up against the shot clock, there's no sort of cooling off period. So bills are also able to be voted on because it's because the shot clock is against council and then move to and then refile the next week, for example, or something.

Okay, that's really helpful. So then, because we don't have, we have a consideration from the administration, not a commitment from the administration, I think this creates false urgency and puts us up against a shot clock that we don't actually need to be put up against if we don't pass it out of committee today. So we're creating urgency in a space that I think council members don't have to, unless we have the opportunity... Council President, for you to make the commitment that you would delay it until we had the information. But if we don't get those commitments here, we're creating false urgency.

Council President? Yeah. I'm actually looking at the... Excuse me. Sorry. I skipped over Councilman Flynn. Go ahead.

It was to this point.

I'm actually looking at this a little different. I think that we've had pretty robust conversation about what additional transparency components could be put in place. And I think that the moving forward to the full Council also puts additional pressure on DEN to come to those dates and resolution quickly because now you guys are on the shot clock before it makes it to the floor. That's point one. The second point I think is also I want to go back and go back to the ordinance that was put in place and the accountability for our contracts for those who are contracted with the city to abide by city rules and other ordinances in place. That is a tool for accountability. Is it, and I'm gonna ask you, Dan, Dan, the whole group, if there is not a ULA in place and we do not have a contract with these airlines, then we don't, it's my understanding that we do not have that accountability with airlines if there is a deportation that is, you know, an illegal deportation. Like we have no recourse then with those airlines. We've taken away our tool.

Yeah, again, and maybe this is best for the attorneys to answer, but...

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

I'm sorry, I believe your question was...

We do not have a ULA with the airports, and we have put an ordinance in place that holds them accountable to city rules, to what our values are here in the city. If we don't have a contract with those ULAs, then we have taken away our tool and ability to hold those airlines accountable. if it comes to light that they have an illegal deportation or there's some other thing that comes to light. If we don't have a contract, we don't have a mechanism to hold them accountable.

I would actually want to speak a little bit more to the den attorneys and to find out a little bit more about that question to answer. It's a non-answer, but I don't feel comfortable answering that on the floor at this moment.

You have a den attorney here? I don't. And I know that City Attorney Miko Brown had been the one mostly working on that piece. So unfortunately, she's not here to speak to that. Not as a den attorney, though. Correct, but she was the one that came up with the strategy also of passing this law accountable via these contracts, via their clause that says they must follow the city's law. And I will just personally say that I have been in extensive executive sessions and meetings about this. And I'm inclined to move this forward because we have been talking about this for over a year already. Councilman Hiflien.

Thank you. Just back to the lease for a second. The ULA with Key Lime Air is doing business as Denver Air Connection. So this ULA, this contract has nothing to do with the signature, with the ice flights out of the fixed base operator. at the other end of the airport. This use and lease agreement is for their gates on Concourse C, where they fly to eight small airports in the region. Alamosa, Alliance Nebraska, Chadron, Clovis New Mexico, Cortez, McCook, Nebraska Pueblo, and Telluride. Are there any state or city subsidies for those regional air flights? I thought the state was helping to provide that essential service. That's not the case?

I can tell you that no city money is going into those, but you're asking about state money? Yeah, I thought there was some state. Let's follow up with you on that. Possibly the New Mexico, but let's follow up with you on that.

My point is that's what this lease is about. It has nothing to do with the flights out of signature. However, as the council president has said, we delayed this process so that we could adopt the bill that was sponsored by Councilwoman Lewis. to hold all city vendors, all holders of city contracts, including these things, responsible for following all city laws. So we held it up in order to do this so that we could then pass it. So to not pass it makes no sense to me because to not pass it, let me use the equivalent of us saying to ICE, if you don't stop those flights out of deportation, flights out of DIA, we're going to burn our own house down. And ICE be like, go ahead, because we can still do all this and you will have no leverage at all. So it literally makes no sense to not move this forward, in my view. This is the purpose of why we delayed it until the month of September. And so I was obviously ready for the floor. I have heard of the measures that the airport is willing to take for transparency. I heard them. And I know that you've given us, Dave, you've given us the estimate of when we would receive reports. But you haven't said that you wouldn't do it. You haven't said we will give you no reports. So I'm satisfied that it's ready for the floor.

Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to call folks to our Rules of Procedure. And on, let me see, on the page under Committees, there is a provision action by committee. It does specifically state in here, let me see, If a motion to forward the matter to the full council is not approved by the committee, then the council secretary shall not except for filing a bill or resolution approving that matter unless council votes to take the matter from the community as provided by Rule 5.7. So there are other ways for us to hold the airport accountable beyond giving it away to them by passing this out of committee because the meetings or the conversation that others have referenced around this table, I would like clarification from folks. Were those in executive session? Okay, so there have been extensive conversations in executive session about this topic. There have been zero public conversations about this topic with our constituents with the very people that are scared about going to the airport and their status might get them picked up and placed into ICE custody, thereby later getting deported on one of these flights. And I guess I've never in my time on council experienced council maybe giving away our safety oversight. If we knew of a vendor that was doing work with DOTI or that was doing work with Parks and Rec or Denver Human Services programming and we caught wind that they were essentially kidnapping people and flying them around the country and that we're all too scared in this room to require Mayor Johnston and the interim CEO of Denver International Airport to pull together all the airlines and talk to them so that they can exert pressure on President Trump and ICE and do something about this instead of running and hiding and then the running and hiding It leads to mistruths. It leads to stories being told because things are happening in an executive session or behind the scenes and the viewing public has no idea. And so I would respectfully ask that we either not move this out of committee because we can't even tell our constituents when the cameras are gonna be operational, when the badges are gonna be changed, and when we start as a city documenting and being responsible instead of washing our hands and saying, oh, woe is me, this is so bad. I know people are maybe getting killed or raped or whatever's going on, but you know, that's not my problem. Well, we all have an oath to follow the Constitution and the Constitution talks about due process and it talks about safety and protection. So I'm going to today do my constitutional requirement and follow the Constitution and what I made an oath to and I do not believe because I could not tell my constituents what was discussed because I don't go to your executive sessions. because I can't believe what Denver International Airport unfortunately tells me. Because for the record, I have an email from Kevin Fourgette in December of 2025. Phil Washington was on that email, all y'all were too. And I asked Kevin to please tell me how many deportation flights have gone out of Denver International Airport and what the status is and what we're doing. That email, he said, Councilman Gilmore, I'm not aware of any deportation flights happening out at Den. That was December of 2025, folks. So I have serious concerns about this. I think, again, we're culpable. I know y'all want to get it off your plate, but maybe it's time for Denver to walk our talk instead of lying about things and doing what is right. because y'all doth protest way too much. for this one. And so I thank you, Madam Chair. I'll follow the, the, but I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Gillard. Council Member List.

Yeah. I'm totally okay with us just having this be a roll call vote because in our own admission in this conversation, we've said we've been talking about this for over a year and we've made no progress. You have no systems in place. They have no way to create accountability by the conversation, from You all own a mission that we don't have anything in place. We do have that ordinance, but what have we received from that ordinance? Nothing, because we don't get the manifestos from the airlines that we conduct business with in order to know what kind of business that they are engaged in. And so if we want to move something forward that doesn't have systems in place, that do not have accountability in place, and that you all are saying that, or that I've heard, at least from you, Councilman, Hi, Councilman Flynn, that I'm suggesting that we not pass this, that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not saying that we don't pass this. I say we don't push this out of committee, not yet, because it's not ready. And my intent is to strengthen whatever comes out of here so that it works for not only the Denver International Airport, but the people for which we have been elected to serve. And so that is my intent. With that, I'm more than happy to vote on these things in the block if we have no desire to strengthen what it is we might have in place in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Lewis. Council President?

Just for clarification, would Council have access to manifestos? Like, can you— The airport doesn't. The airport manifestos? I'm just wondering, because I— Is that... No one does. I mean, I just want to set expectation. Like, I don't know if that's... We have no way of getting those manifests.

Because I didn't... Those manifests are protected. In fact, Southwest Airlines has said we won't share any manifests without a warrant, basically. And we have no ability to access those manifests.

Right.

Is that all, Council President? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

We'll call the question.

I would like to make some remarks before we make our vote. I would just say that I do think this provides us a tool to hold the airlines accountable. And we have been in extensive conversations in those executive sessions to talk about those tools and strategies that would do a disservice to us and those strategies to talk about them publicly. And so we'll go ahead and take the roll call vote.

Just for clarity, can you repeat the items in a block?

So, do you want me to read each item? No.

Just 48 through 37.

We're moving, just to be clear, the motion was for 1348 through 1357.

Councilmembers Flynn?

Aye.

Gilmour? No. Hines?

Aye.

Lewis? Nay. Mayor Campo? Aye. Chair Alvarez? Aye. We're ayes.

Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Thank you. As we transition, I'll just say the next item that we have up is from the vibrant bond funding. Our presenters can make their way up. Do we have the presenters for the next item in the room? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. Will you just introduce yourself and you're welcome to take it away with your presentation. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for having me. Kara Sequino, Director and Dottie, overseeing the District 6 Police Station Project.

And Maggie Thompson with the Elevate Rise Bond Programs. Thank you.

Thank you for your time today. We'd like to give a brief overview on the District 6 project, including an update on scope, schedule, budget, and what actions you will be seeing before you momentarily, and really just where we're at on the project and what our next steps look like at this point in time. Some renderings on screen here. As you may recall, this is an Elevate Denver Bond voter approved project to replace District 6 police station and provide parking solutions. The project scope currently is a replacement of the existing D6 location with a new station in the same site as the existing building as well as a separate parking garage facility on the same site. We had a recent pivot for the project this summer. Back in July, we went to the Board of Adjustment to request several variances. The design of a police station and its sort of high security safety as a primary operational function of this type of architectural building type. is not your everyday architectural project in a community. However, we did feel that because of those high security, highly specialized needs of this particular building type, that several variances could be considered. That is what we were hoping for back in July. However, at that hearing, We were denied eight of those variance requests, two of which were approved for building height and some mass and form for the material of the exterior of the building. Those two were approved, but the other eight were not. And so we went back to the drawing board. We had a quick redesign effort to really evaluate with the police department. Can we thread the needle? to be meeting the intent of the zoning code as a fully compliant project that is a good community addition, good asset to the community, helps with transparency and safety and engagement as a good neighbor, balanced with the high security and specialized nature of a police station itself and what that means from an operational standpoint with the police and the protection of the public. So we tweaked the design. Some examples of those variances that we have since tweaked since July are on the screen on the top right. You can see the elevation of the Washington Street side of the building. The yellow rectangles indicate newly added windows, which will be ballistic rated glass. We had originally omitted the yellow boxes that you see in an attempt to, again, keep the high security criteria of the facility at paramount concern. The zoning code, however, requires what is called transparency. That is the level of glazing and other such features that you could utilize architecturally so that every building in a neighborhood is not just a solid, secure fortress of a wall. So we said, okay, you know what? We think we can accommodate that. We can come to an agreement with safety. We'll add some more windows therefore by meeting the zoning code as written. So therefore not needing any other variances, adding a few more windows, but the compromise there was, okay, we will make these the ballistic rated glazing. That is one example of how we have since July addressed these changes to the original design to help again, be a good partner in the community, meet the intent of the zoning code and keep high security design elements at the forefront. So those efforts also in tandem with, as you may know, the recent several months ago announcement of the demolition of the Colorado pharmacy building shown in blue on the slide on the screen. That would allow the potential future housing development component on this site, not on the project itself, not part of the project, but demoing to make way for that future project. That also requires abatement. and abatement and demolition, which our professional services team, our architectural team is required to create drawing sets for that work. So that paired with the pivots and the redesign from the zoning code, all of those things combined require additional effort on our design team. So we are coming to present an amendment to the professional services agreement that we have with Ross Shepherd Architects in the amount of $684,000 to accommodate these types of things. We've also had some additional design changes. We've added some security canopy provisions on the top level of the parking garage and other locations and things like that. So one of the requests coming for your approval is an amendment to the design contract. The second request that we have is for the construction contract, the execution of our guaranteed maximum price contract. That is in the amount of 68.18, I think I rounded here, 68.2 million for the construction contract. We have currently been working under a pre-con agreement. with France and Pittman constructors, and they are moving into the construction phase. We are anticipating an October notice to proceed for construction, and that is why we're now bringing the construction contract, not the pre-con agreement, the construction contract at this time for your approval. And again, just noting that the Colorado Pharmacy building demolition has been added scope to this project, the demolition only, not any building or design or anything else on that site. It is a city-owned parcel adjacent to our police station project site. So we are here in the middle requesting and seeking your approval on the design amendment and the construction contract. They will both come to you at the same time. We have submitted for permit. We are in for permit currently. So we are working through the regulatory actions that we do on every construction project. And then hopefully, like I mentioned, in October moving forth with construction. We're very excited. We've been working on this project for several years. and would love to put a shovel in the ground and really start push this one over the finish line as we kind of wrap up the tail end of the Elevate Denver Bond Program here. We have also temporarily relocated D6 staff from the existing location into some vacant space at the Police Administration Building. Some of you may have been on a tour recently and seen the condition of the existing facility. also recently had some flooding. So we are very eager and very, very excited to get our police staff out and into a new location temporarily so that we can get to work on this great project and move them back in when the project is complete. Just like every community project that we have, we have done a very long list of public outreach over the years where we have worked with the community and all throughout the design phase for the last several years. These are just some of the more recent things that have occurred. As we get through to construction preparation, there will as always on our construction projects, be communications with the neighbors and traffic control and all the typical communications that go out to the neighborhood as we approach actual construction activities. And so this is really just kind of a snapshot of what's going on in the community engagement space. And then really just our next steps, which are approval of the design amendment, moving into the construction phase, approval of the construction contract with hopeful notice to proceed next month and get into construction on this one.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. We have one council member in queue now, too. Councilman Flynn.

Hey, Madam Chair. Could you go back to slide six for a second? I have to confess I have not toured District 6 Station. I hardly ever get to that part of town. Can you orient me as to where the building footprint lies on that diagram?

Sure. So this is the existing station? Yes. Surface parking. The new station will be over here and the parking garage will be over here.

Okay, that's the exact opposite of what I pictured. Okay. So that clears up a little bit of fog. Sure. That was actually my only question.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. All right, thank you, Committee Chair. Thank you for being here. What was this building originally built for?

It's a medical facility originally. So this is never, the current existing DPD 6 station has never, was never built to be a police station to begin with. When Commander Fulmer was giving us a tour the other day, I think Councilwoman Alvedrez, you remember, we saw the check-in desk that you could go to if you're checking in for a medical appointment. And so it is, it was never purpose-built as a police station.

Yeah, and it shows. So Councilmember Flynn, you haven't been there. I've been there several times and as a guest, not in the back of a police car, and I guess they're guests too, but you'd probably put them into detention instead of... Anyway, The building is wholly unsuitable for humans to occupy, much less city employees and our members of law enforcement that are trying to keep us all safe. So the air conditioning isn't working right now. There's this big portable, portable as in like a tractor trailer size, external unit that's piping in. Mostly unsuccessfully air conditioning into the building. And so so we have our city employees working in 8085 degree temperatures in the building. So it's, it's rough. The roll call is upstairs and the elevator often does not work. And so if people wanted to visit with the community, the roll call is pretty much the only space available other than outside. And so that's why the DPD6 CAG meetings are often outside even when it's really hot or really cold. So not an ideal situation. And I would say the people agreed 10 years ago So there was a conversation before 10 years ago enough that the people said, you know what, we do need to do a solid for all of our DPD 6 officers to make sure that we have a habitable situation and it's been 10 years. And so part of the challenge now is that the the time limit is very short because we didn't expect a 10 year bond process to take right up until the 10th year. So I think I agree that we need to do something. I think community also agrees that we need to do something. I think community also says that it is important for our city employees to have a safe place in which to work. I also believe that it's, you know, high priority for those who want to interact with the police and not just the police, but there are people I know. Someone threatened to kill me and I went to DBD 6 because that was my police station and it was locked. So that was kind of an interesting, didn't know exactly what to do to report the crime but it was because that there were protests in the area and they weren't sure if they could secure the building. Because again, it was a medical facility. It was never meant to be a police station. And so that's not meant to be a knock against the responsiveness or lack thereof of the police department. It was more meant to be the police needed to do some very basic things to make sure that they felt safe. And also there are people who want the protection of the police and they should feel safe. safe and welcome to come to the center and also feel safe once they're there. And if there's someone meaning to do them harm, they have a place to go. I think part of the challenge of being 10 years with the bond project and then the conversation before the bond, so a couple years even before that, is once you get into a dozen years, the conversations that were 10 or 12 years ago are different than the conversations today. And so, with Lumley, who just left, so I'm gonna talk about her since she's not here. When I took office in 2019, the plan was the bond was partial funding to replace the structure and the rest of the funding was going to be made up by selling the parcel. And I said, I don't agree that we should be selling city property, especially right in this location. And so, I'm part of the problem in that I changed the structure, the nature of the consideration. I would say the community, you mentioned that there are community processes. There are still community that doesn't feel like they've had a conversation today. And I would say for the sake of those who are city employees that work there, the people who want to come to a police station and feel welcoming and go to the CAG meetings, and those who are fleeing violence or a perpetrator, I think that there's an opportunity for us that we missed, that we could have had people engaged in that conversation. And maybe we don't talk about the operational nature of exactly every square foot of the building, but maybe we talk about how can we make sure that the facade is, the front is trauma-informed and then the welcoming space is trauma-informed. And I recognize that we don't every day get a police station for consideration where we would rebuild the police station and And boy, we could do some gussing up in the police headquarters, too But here we are. I think that the um friction the biggest friction is that um there are people who live around the station who um who wanted to be engaged in a community conversation and i think that we owe it to community to have a community conversation because we're using the people's money and so i'm not sure really what to do at this point because we we're at the deadline we need to do something, we need to fix the space. I would say that the mayor was kind enough to have some compromise because one of the big conversations is, what about additional housing on the site? Allowing us to offer the pharmacy building, I think is, uh it for for housing i think is a is a move in the right direction um i've talked with director mccannon he said that he has personally worked on multiple projects he's a not just the head of cpd he's an architect who's architected buildings in the city before and and has said that it is possible to develop housing on that site And if anyone wants confirmation, he's here in the audience. But I think that we missed an opportunity as we were coming close to the end to say, this is what we're working on. Maybe we could make this better. I can't not move forward with a DPD 6 site. I think that there are community members who want to talk about this when it comes to council. Not sure exactly how to support that. Maybe I can work with council president. There are also public comment opportunities. People can talk about any topic. And I imagine that community will think that that's not enough. But I think it behooves us, if we weren't going to have the community conversation leading up to the shovel hitting the ground, I think that we should at least have the conversation about how we're not going to do this again. How we should, as a community, say we owe it to community to have a conversation about how we use the people's money. I'm kind of a little bit of pretzeled after a dozen years of contemplating it. So it's very frustrating to me and frustrating to community that I know that when I learned about the Board of Adjustment and there were six variances coming to council, I immediately reached out to Ms. Lumley and it was two weeks in advance. Turns out it ended up being 10, but I could not get a meeting with her. even though there were two weeks between them and when I learned about it in the Board of Adjustment. And so I would love to have shared with her my plan to testify against this committee. I did not have the opportunity to do that. At any rate, so I want to work with council president to see if we can have opportunity for public comment. I do think that this is ready for the full body. So I'll be supporting moving it forward. I think we can learn some lessons from it though.

Thank you, Councilman Hines. I did want to open up in case anyone from the public did want to speak to this issue, but I don't see anything. So I will just ask, since I see we have a special guest, Chief Thomas, do you want to say anything about this before? Yeah, you can come over to that microphone and reintroduce yourself, please.

Thank you, Ron Thomas, Denver Police Chief. I'm excited for this to move forward. I think everybody in District 6 understands that it is truly unlivable conditions. I think that the officers deserve better. I think the community deserves better, and so I'm happy to see this move forward.

Thank you, Chief. I will say I appreciate what you had to say, Councilman Hines, especially around trauma-informed when we went on our tour. There was a domestic violence victim in the atrium in a place where I wouldn't want to ever be, much less in that moment. And it is completely unacceptable that we have a building where city workers are building in this facility. Would anybody like to make a motion to move this forward? Council President, seconded by Councilman Flynn. And do we need a roll call vote? No. All right. Well, we will move this forward. Thank you so much for your time. And we do have a number of items on consent as no one has called them off. They will proceed and we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you. Thank you.