Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The nearly billion dollar vibrant Denver bond package now heading
to voters this November in hopes of funding around sixty projects,
varying from new parks and recreation centers to infrastructure improvements,
maintenance projects, and other city upgrades.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
But the spending plan also came with lengthy debate from
city council members. Councilwoman flor Alvidres voted yes to send
the package to voters, but voted no for some parts.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I don't think everyone gets something they need. I don't
think our elections division is getting everything it needs to
secure our elections, and that is concerning.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Joining us now on the Kawa Commons Spirit Health Hotline
for District seven is Denver City Counciloman Flora L. Vidres.
Councilwoman l Vidres, thank you so much for your time
this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Good morning, happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Give us a little bit of your reaction to this
final bond package. What were some of those projects in
addition to some of the election security measures that we
heard you mentioned there that you were a little hesitant
on when it came to that final vote.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Yeah, I think overall the dollar amount almost a billion
dollars and six years is something I'm concerned about also
just the interest, right, So it's a billion dollars for
the bond, it's a billion dollars for the interest. So
that's something that's concerning when it comes to property taxes
when my constituents are complaining about affordability. The particular reasons
(01:16):
I voted now was the infrastructure. That the Eighth Avenue
Viaduct is only a third of a mile or less,
and it's ninety million dollars of that bond, which is
a lot of money for such a small bridge that
we're not even completely replacing. So that was concerning when
my residents have been waiting for things like the Alimeter
Viaduct improvements and it's over one hundred years old.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Counsel one, Before we get more into the granular of
some of the bond, I just want to understand it's
a bond, so it's raising money, but it is going
to cost tax payers something, right, And you mentioned the
property tax piece, so something's going to be coming out
of our pockets, correct.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Right, So if we didn't pass this bond, property taxes
would gradually go down as we pay off the existing bonds.
But with this bond, keep the mills that we can
tap into over the next six years. The thing about
that is that with property assessments, those can go up,
so potentially tax your property taxes could go up, even
(02:15):
though we're in a way saying that there can stay
the same.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Was it always the plan when we look at the
measure and how it's set up for voters in November?
Was it always the plan to have five separate ballot
measures in front of voters or was it ever considered
to put all the projects into one ballot question.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
So the reason it's five separate items is because that
was always the plan, and that's because we're going off
of the existing bonds that taxpayers have approved in the past.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
So what of other things you mentioned some of the priorities.
Is there anything else in the bond do you think
is not necessary and takes away from other priorities that
could have been met or done with with funding like this.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
My biggest concern, like I mentioned, is those structure packages,
and also just the lack of funding for things like
our elections division, which is very important and very needed.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
At this time, it feel like council members were really
pushing for projects that were in their district as they
probably should, because obviously they want to see the improvements
and the money go to their districts and not considering
other measures. What was a little bit about the friction
that you saw between council members.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I mean, everyone got a little bit of something in
their district, which I think is good. But I don't
think we should be satisfied with the ten twenty million
dollar project when we're going to be spending hundreds of
millions concentrated in around the Burnham Yard for just to
be born.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
I want to get into that. But you mentioned something
that stuck out with me because we've had clerk and
recorder Paul Lopez on our program talking about how he's,
for lack of a better term, really annoyed and kind
of pissed off that he's asked twice out for funding
for elections for those things and he feels like he's
getting blown off. You feel like that that's something that
should have been heeded or considered this with this funding.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
Yes, I did propose an amendment to get inclusion for
his elections division funding. It is a concern. I think
everyone's paying attention to our elections right now. We need
them to be as secure as possible, and the fact
that that wasn't included and council members didn't see that
as a priority is concerning. I think parks and rec
centers are great, but election centers are in need.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
You mentioned Burnham Yard, and I know that demolition that
took place, and people have been rumoring and rumoring of
multiple locations for the possibility of a Broncos stadium. Earlier,
you also mentioned a meeting with the Broncos that might
be pertaining to that six to eighth Avenue bridge projects.
Do you think the Broncos are pushing for these projects
to be in the forefront of the bond proposal.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
I absolutely think that they are pushing for eighth Avenue
and sixth Avenue projects to be included, which they could
be on the hook for if they were to move
forward with Burnham Yard. So that part is very concerning
to me as well.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Are you are you for keeping the stadium within the
city auspices like that? Is this the right way to
go about that.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
I think we need to be transparent with voters. If
that's what we're doing, we just need to say I
think that I grew up in Denver Bronco fan voters
might get behind it even more if they knew that, Okay,
this means we're going to get a new stadium, maybe
we could host the super Bowl one day. I think
that's something that's very exciting. But I think voters deserve
to know and council members deserve to know before we
vote why we're doing these projects.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Coltswoman Alvidres in wrapping up with you, and we're looking
at this project in front of voters come November. Do
you think it will pass? Do you think parts of
it will pass? Do you think some of it, none
of it? And what happens if parts of it does
get rejected on that November ballot.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
I do hope at least some of it passes that
we face budget cuts. I don't know how we're going
to do basic things around the city, but I do
not think that the entire thing will pass because I
received over one hundred unsolicited emails from my constituents against
this bond, and I didn't receive one from a normal
tax paying resident that said I really want to pass respond.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Denvers City Councilwoman for District seven is Flora Alvidraz. Thank
you
The nearly billion dollar vibrant Denver bond package now heading
to voters this November in hopes of funding around sixty projects,
varying from new parks and recreation centers to infrastructure improvements,
maintenance projects, and other city upgrades.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
But the spending plan also came with lengthy debate from
city council members. Councilwoman flor Alvidres voted yes to send
the package to voters, but voted no for some parts.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I don't think everyone gets something they need. I don't
think our elections division is getting everything it needs to
secure our elections, and that is concerning.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Joining us now on the Kawa Commons Spirit Health Hotline
for District seven is Denver City Counciloman Flora L. Vidres.
Councilwoman l Vidres, thank you so much for your time
this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Good morning, happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Give us a little bit of your reaction to this
final bond package. What were some of those projects in
addition to some of the election security measures that we
heard you mentioned there that you were a little hesitant
on when it came to that final vote.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Yeah, I think overall the dollar amount almost a billion
dollars and six years is something I'm concerned about also
just the interest, right, So it's a billion dollars for
the bond, it's a billion dollars for the interest. So
that's something that's concerning when it comes to property taxes
when my constituents are complaining about affordability. The particular reasons
(01:16):
I voted now was the infrastructure. That the Eighth Avenue
Viaduct is only a third of a mile or less,
and it's ninety million dollars of that bond, which is
a lot of money for such a small bridge that
we're not even completely replacing. So that was concerning when
my residents have been waiting for things like the Alimeter
Viaduct improvements and it's over one hundred years old.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Counsel one, Before we get more into the granular of
some of the bond, I just want to understand it's
a bond, so it's raising money, but it is going
to cost tax payers something, right, And you mentioned the
property tax piece, so something's going to be coming out
of our pockets, correct.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Right, So if we didn't pass this bond, property taxes
would gradually go down as we pay off the existing bonds.
But with this bond, keep the mills that we can
tap into over the next six years. The thing about
that is that with property assessments, those can go up,
so potentially tax your property taxes could go up, even
(02:15):
though we're in a way saying that there can stay
the same.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Was it always the plan when we look at the
measure and how it's set up for voters in November?
Was it always the plan to have five separate ballot
measures in front of voters or was it ever considered
to put all the projects into one ballot question.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
So the reason it's five separate items is because that
was always the plan, and that's because we're going off
of the existing bonds that taxpayers have approved in the past.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
So what of other things you mentioned some of the priorities.
Is there anything else in the bond do you think
is not necessary and takes away from other priorities that
could have been met or done with with funding like this.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
My biggest concern, like I mentioned, is those structure packages,
and also just the lack of funding for things like
our elections division, which is very important and very needed.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
At this time, it feel like council members were really
pushing for projects that were in their district as they
probably should, because obviously they want to see the improvements
and the money go to their districts and not considering
other measures. What was a little bit about the friction
that you saw between council members.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I mean, everyone got a little bit of something in
their district, which I think is good. But I don't
think we should be satisfied with the ten twenty million
dollar project when we're going to be spending hundreds of
millions concentrated in around the Burnham Yard for just to
be born.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
I want to get into that. But you mentioned something
that stuck out with me because we've had clerk and
recorder Paul Lopez on our program talking about how he's,
for lack of a better term, really annoyed and kind
of pissed off that he's asked twice out for funding
for elections for those things and he feels like he's
getting blown off. You feel like that that's something that
should have been heeded or considered this with this funding.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
Yes, I did propose an amendment to get inclusion for
his elections division funding. It is a concern. I think
everyone's paying attention to our elections right now. We need
them to be as secure as possible, and the fact
that that wasn't included and council members didn't see that
as a priority is concerning. I think parks and rec
centers are great, but election centers are in need.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
You mentioned Burnham Yard, and I know that demolition that
took place, and people have been rumoring and rumoring of
multiple locations for the possibility of a Broncos stadium. Earlier,
you also mentioned a meeting with the Broncos that might
be pertaining to that six to eighth Avenue bridge projects.
Do you think the Broncos are pushing for these projects
to be in the forefront of the bond proposal.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
I absolutely think that they are pushing for eighth Avenue
and sixth Avenue projects to be included, which they could
be on the hook for if they were to move
forward with Burnham Yard. So that part is very concerning
to me as well.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Are you are you for keeping the stadium within the
city auspices like that? Is this the right way to
go about that.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
I think we need to be transparent with voters. If
that's what we're doing, we just need to say I
think that I grew up in Denver Bronco fan voters
might get behind it even more if they knew that, Okay,
this means we're going to get a new stadium, maybe
we could host the super Bowl one day. I think
that's something that's very exciting. But I think voters deserve
to know and council members deserve to know before we
vote why we're doing these projects.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Coltswoman Alvidres in wrapping up with you, and we're looking
at this project in front of voters come November. Do
you think it will pass? Do you think parts of
it will pass? Do you think some of it, none
of it? And what happens if parts of it does
get rejected on that November ballot.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
I do hope at least some of it passes that
we face budget cuts. I don't know how we're going
to do basic things around the city, but I do
not think that the entire thing will pass because I
received over one hundred unsolicited emails from my constituents against
this bond, and I didn't receive one from a normal
tax paying resident that said I really want to pass respond.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Denvers City Councilwoman for District seven is Flora Alvidraz. Thank
you
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!