Hey Denver, it's time for the weekly general session of your Denver City Council.

Tonight's coverage of Denver City Council starts now.

Okay, thank you.

They're coming.

Thank you, producer.

Oh yes.

Sorry, apologize.

My audio is not working.

Hello everyone.

My name is Sam Guzman with the CLC.

Joining you virtually through Zoom, and along with my colleague Jasmine.

We will be interpreting today's meeting into Spanish.

Please allow me a quick minute while I give instructions in Spanish on how to access interpretation.

Thank you very much, Sam.

Welcome to the Denver City Council meeting of Tuesday, March 31st, 2026.

Council members, please join Councilmember Cashman in the Pledge of Leading.

I Pledge to the flag of the United States of America.

The Denver City Council honors and acknowledges that the land on which we reside is the traditional territory of the U, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe peoples.

We also recognize the 48 contemporary tribal nations that are historically tied to the lands that make up the state of Colorado.

We honor elders, past, present, and future, and those who have stewarded this land throughout generations.

We also recognize the government, academic, and cultural institutions were founded upon and continue to enact exclusions and erasures of indigenous peoples.

May this acknowledge and demonstrate a commitment to working to dismantle ongoing legacies of oppression and inequities and recognize the current and future contributions of indigenous communities in Denver.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, we'll call.

Romero Campbell.

Romero Campbell.

Here.

Here.

Gilmore.

Here.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Here.

Heinz.

Here.

Cashman.

Here.

Parody.

Here.

Sawyer.

Here.

Watson.

Here.

30 members present.

There are 13 members present.

Council has a quorum.

Approval of the minutes.

Are there corrections to the minutes of March 23rd?

Seeing none.

The minutes stand approved.

Council announcements.

Are there any announcements from members of council this afternoon?

Councilmember Flynn.

Thank you, Madam President.

I want to thank the organization Denver Urban Gardens for their efforts in Southwest Denver establishing a very large new community garden in near the DPS Glenbroker Greenhouse off of Bellevue and Field.

They have volunteered.

The reason I'm making this announcement is they have volunteer opportunities.

My wife and I were over there on Friday.

Every Friday, I think through April, they're offering opportunities for you all to come down and help establish this garden.

They've made a lot of headway already.

You can go to the website at volunteer.dug.org and fill out the form.

They have two ships available each Friday, nine to noon, and one to four.

And uh it's uh Madam President and colleagues, it's it's such a fantastic site that they're doing uh that they're creating there on a site of a 12-acre former DPS elementary school site that never got built in my neighborhood because of all the annexations that failed back in the 70s.

But on this site now, DPS has a six bay greenhouse where I mentioned before they grow uh produce for Denver Public Schools cafeterias, and they've set aside area for a food forest that was planted about two or three years ago, it's now blooming.

And uh now with the community garden, there's opportunities of all with all size available for people to come and participate in growing food.

And finally, uh DPS is going to till the remaining acreage, uh, probably about uh more than two-thirds of an acre, well, well more than two-thirds of an acre on the south side and cultivate that for uh they've hired a farmer in the area to come in and grow crops on that land.

So the entire site is gonna be dedicated to production of food.

So if you're of a mind to help out, please go to volunteer.dug.org and fill out the form.

Thank you, Madam President.

Next up we have Councilmember Cashman.

Yeah, thank you, Madam President.

And uh since it's happening tomorrow night, this is the last time I have the opportunity to announce District 6's hosting our Meet the City Academy in the community from 6 to 8 p.m.

at uh Cook Park Recreation Center, 7100 Cherry Creek Drive South, just east of Monaco on Cherry Creek Drive.

We're gonna have about 30 Denver City agencies and external partners there, setting up tables with information and people to answer your questions live and in person.

You can find out what's going on with the uh uh unlocking housing choices uh discussion that's taking place around the city.

You can talk to uh XL Energy about uh uh whatever compliments you want to send their way.

You can tell Denver Water you're gonna do your best to observe the drought restrictions and preserve that uh limited resource.

There'll be Denver Parks, there'll be uh community planning and development, public health and environment, dozens of city agencies live and in person again.

Tomorrow night, April 1st, 6 to 8 p.m.

at Cook Park Rec Center.

But uh big news the mighty University of Denver Pioneers hockey team is uh headed uh for Las Vegas April 9th to 11th for the Frozen 4 hockey championship.

Uh the Paios beat Cornell 5-0 in the first game of the regionals up in Loveland Friday night on Sunday.

They beat Western Michigan 6 to 2, and uh the first game of the frozen four, they'll be playing Michigan University, and as I uh uh said this morning, my colleagues heard it, it produces a Cashman family uh trauma, and that I am a uh steady PyOS fan.

Uh my grandson is a freshman at the University of Michigan.

There will be some serious trash talking cashman household.

Thank you, Madam Press.

Thank you.

Councilmember Watson.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Um, I wanted to share the uh City Park uh bandstand uh stood for 97 years.

Um we were devastated to see the destruction of this beloved structure.

Um our families enjoyed weddings, uh picnics, lazy days in the shade, and of course, the kick off of the summer at City Park Jazz for generations.

Um I want to thank Denver Fire Department uh for your quick response.

Um, also uh Denver Police Department for your ongoing investigation.

We will, along with community, rebuild the City Park Bandstand.

Denver Parks and Recreation in collaboration with Denver Park Trust will help to raise additional funds to rebuild the bandstand.

You can go to Denver Parktrust.network for the good dot com for more information on their fundraising steps to donate.

And then also City Park Friends and Neighbors as well as City Park Alliance.

They are also throwing in their hats to raise funds to help rebuild the bandstand.

You can please go to their websites for more information.

And as always, you can always reach out to my office at District 9 at Denvergov.org for more information of how to engage, how to be present, and how to donate to ensure that we rebuild City Park Bandstand.

And a point of personal privilege.

Thank you.

That is so sweet.

Congratulations.

Which is the highest attended single game of national women's soccer ever.

And so I think Denver should be really proud of the way they've showed up to support women in this way.

And it was a great time for that.

I also wanted to shout out the Colorado Rockies because they're having their opening day.

They matter to you.

Opening day is always a fun fun game, win or lose.

Lastly, I wanted to share that our District 7 Book Club kicks off this Wednesday from 5 to 7 p.m.

at Habitat for Humanity at 430 South Navajo.

If you're interested, we're still taking uh people to sign up.

You can email District7 at Denvergov.org.

We will be giving out copies of the Constitution and reading the Constitution and Community.

Um so that's really exciting.

Um that's about it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Torres.

Um thank you so much, Madam President.

Um I wanted to acknowledge somebody um who I've gotten to know really well over the last several years.

Um, Frances Torres, uh, just recently um uh passed away.

Um she was the youngest daughter of Philip and Petra Torres um uh lived at 1033 Ninth Street.

And if you're not familiar with where 1033 Ninth Street it is, one of the historic homes on Auraria campus that was preserved when the campus was um uh declared a little area became a campus and all the residents were moved off.

Um her family were among the 7,000 babies delivered by Dr.

Justina Ford here in Denver.

Um she was displaced from Auraria when she was 19 years old, a social worker by profession, and just want to share.

Well uh there'll come a time when we share a bit more, more formally about Francis Torres.

Um, but so much what she has worked for for years has begun to come to fruition um on Auraria campus, and that's the route one the recognition of the historic Ninth Street Corridor Advisory Committee, the governance committee.

Um, and I'm a member of that um and uh really proud to be able to work with other displaced herrins and the universities on how we make good on the promises that were made to families who are forced to leave that neighborhood.

Um we also have the hundred-year anniversary of the completion of St.

Cadjutan's Church uh coming up.

So some really amazing milestones.

Um Frances was a force, um just a really um admirable in her ability to um identify opportunities to stand up for the community that she loved so much.

Um and so um just want to share um my adoration to her family who I know is really in that loss.

Um, and I look forward to being able to really celebrate all that Frances and the displaced terrarian community have done um uh ongoing um as we continue to path out another um I think era of um trying to make sure that we're uh making good on our promises to those families.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Council Coach Ember Mario Campbell, Council Council Coach Campbell.

Council Council Coach Campbell.

Okay, we'll come back to her.

Thank you, Nancy.

Um Councilman Cashman, you didn't mention that you get a two for one at your 6-6 Academy in the community.

Because I will also be there.

This is my I think my second year here maybe.

Um I'm excited to be at that.

Um so if you want me to talk to one of your at large council members and you live in district six, I'm I'll be there.

Um the other thing I want to just um, you know, the long-awaited and anticipated uh another collabo with Councilman Cashman is the RO, the registered neighborhood organization uh community no community feedback sessions begin um next week, starting with our first one on April 9th at the Mont Bellow Rec Center from 6 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

Um so if you live in the area or you want to travel from afar, we are going to have four of these, and they are going to be in different parts of the city.

Um but everyone's welcome to come and prov and provide your feedback on the report from the work that we've been doing on registered neighborhood organizations and the many survey um and information that we've gathered from community.

Um we'll be taking additional feedback as we continue to move forward with um that ordinance.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilman Lewis.

I thank you.

I just wanted to make one quick announcement.

Um, and I just wanted to thank those that attended our first district community panel last Wednesday.

Um so we'll be hosting our next one on Saturday in the Area Peter Taylor building from 12 to 2 p.m.

Um and this is gonna be an opportunity for us to discuss uh our budget priorities for the 2027 budget with community, and so I hope that folks are able to attend.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Councilwoman, Council Pro Tem Romero Campbell.

Thank you.

Um hopefully you can hear me now.

Um I just wanted to I'm in space.

Okay.

Terrible connection.

Um, I just wanted to remind people that if they wanted to register for the Welshire 100, um, the Welsh Golf Course is going to turn a hundred years, and we are doing a community celebration and golf tournament and registration opens tomorrow.

So if you're interested, please go to cityofdenvergolf.com forward slash Welshire 100, and you can register um bright and early tomorrow morning.

Um, and uh we have limited space, so um please come join us if you are able.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gilmer.

Thank you.

I wanted to uh recognize that today is uh the trans day of visibility.

It's a day uh that celebrates the trans community, and there was um uh uh memorial and remembrance at the Senate chambers across the street uh this morning, and Jack Scratton uh who um is a dear friend.

Um her mother was there, and if folks recognize her name, um she went missing um in Denver uh last April and was unfortunately found um deceased um in Lakewood.

And so um recognizing people for um their gifts and who they are today, and not only having um days of memorial, but days of visibility so that we know that our trans uh relatives are here, LGBTQ folks are here and uh deserve the same uh human rights and respect and protection that everyone uh deserves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um just a friendly reminder to all Denver residents that tomorrow is April 1st, it's April Fool's Day, and street sweeping starts.

So go back, go back out to your sidewalk and look at your sign and send friendly reminders to all of your neighbors because everyone hates those $50 tickets.

And um, it's not we don't have a parking magistrate right now.

See, it's really hard to dispute anything because we don't have a parking magistrate.

So a friendly reminder, everyone go out, look at your parking signs, text everyone on your block, street sweeping's the second, whatever, third, whatever, um, because that starts officially tomorrow.

So some street sweepers will be outside tomorrow and on Thursday and on Friday.

That's your friendly reminder not to have everyone get up.

Thank you all.

Seeing no other announcements, there are no presentations, there are no communications.

There are two proclamations being read this afternoon.

Councilmember Albidaris, would you please read proclamation 0433?

Yes, proclamation 0433, honoring Denver Arts and Venues during Colorado Arts Education Month.

Whereas the Colorado General Assembly adopted SR 26003, designating the month of March as Arts Education Month statewide, affirming that dance, media arts, music, theater, and visual arts are essential elements, elements of complete education for Colorado students, and that better data, access and support are needed to ensure equitable arts learning across the state.

And whereas Colorado's inaugural arts education month was championed by the Colorado Business Committee for the Arts and Think 360 Arts for Learning with bipartisan sponsorship in the Senate and statewide toolkit inviting schools and communities to activate arts and learning through March.

And whereas Denver Arts and Venues is the city and county of Denver's agency responsible for operating some of the region's most renowned facilities, including Red Rocks Amphitheater, Denver Performing Arts Complex, Colorado Convention Center, Denver Coliseum, McNichols Civic Center Building, and the Theater at Loreto Heights, in addition to supporting local artists and arts organizations.

And whereas Denver's renewed cultural roadmap, stewarded by Denver Arts and Venues called Denver Creates, a collective commitment to the arts, underscores the city's commitment to broaden youth access to art learning, cultivate the cultural community, and strengthen the economic vitality of the creative sector through coordinated data informed action.

And whereas since spring 2023, Denver Arts and Venues has supported Equity and Arts Learning for Colorado Youth Grant, contributing over 400,000 in funding to increase access to arts education for historically marginalized youth in Denver.

And whereas Denver Arts and Venues also supports out-of-school time arts programming at Rec centers and historically under-resourced communities for youth 12 years and older through a partnership with Denver Parks and Rec.

And whereas Denver Arts and Venues 1% for Public Art Program has created a collection of more than 500 artworks across the city, forming an accessible open art classroom for all, offering daily opportunities for learning, reflection, and creative exploration.

And whereas Denver Public Arts Collection and Free Public Art Tours enriches arts education by turning the civic space into open inclusive learning environments where students, educators, and families can experience creativity and the diverse stories that shape our city.

Now, therefore, be a proclaimed by the Denver City Council that Denver City Council do hereby proclaim March as Art Education Month in Denver and call upon schools, educators, artists, cultural organizations, families, and community leaders to champion arts learning, participate in and support community arts initiatives, and take public art tour and explore public art in your neighborhood.

And section two that the clerk and recorder of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to Gretchen Hollera, Executive Director, Tariana Naves Nevis, Brooke Dilling, and Janine Brock Bragg.

Councilwoman Albidras, your um motion to adopt.

I move that proclamation 26-0433 be adopted.

It has been moved and seconded.

Comments by members of council.

Councilmember Albidaras.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, this is very meaningful to me.

I was an arts kid and having access to arts in my schools was really important to me, and it's been harder and harder to have that programming be accessible to our youth, and I'm really proud to learn about all the amazing work that Denver Arts and Venues is doing, as well as supporting the local organizations that are doing really great work in this way.

So I ask my colleagues to support this proclamation and support um the work that the state is doing to really highlight the need to have arts available to our children.

Thank you.

Councilmember Watson.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Albidarus for bringing this board.

I can tell you um being the representative representing uh District 9 and just the importance of art in our culture.

Even beyond our schools.

The real collaborative process that Denver Arts and Venues have had within five points, really ensuring that we are not only enriching those who are coming into our communities with the historic cultural art that represents who we are, but we're also investing in our communities to make sure that folks who are artists, whether they're singers or their drawings or painters and stuff like that, that they are elevated and that they are supported, and it is through Denver Arts and Venues and your unique process that you do with providing funding throughout all of our communities.

So I want to thank you so much and thank you, as always, uh, Councilman Alvidras for always lifting up the arts.

It is so essential to our communities.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, we'll call.

Council members Lewis.

Romero Gamel.

Aye.

Albidres.

Hi.

Gilmore.

Hi.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Aye.

Heinz?

Hi.

Cashman.

Hi.

Parity?

Aye.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Torres.

Hi.

Watson.

Aye.

Madam President Sandable.

Hi.

Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.

Twelve eyes.

Twelve eyes.

Proclamation 0433 has been adopted.

We now have time for the proclamation acceptance.

Councilmember Abidras, who would you be inviting up?

I'd like to invite up Director Hallra and her team.

I'd like to share some words.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much for sponsoring this proclamation, Councilwoman Alvidres, and members of City Council.

I'm joined here with two members of our senior leadership team, Tariana and Misnevis, our deputy executive director, and Janine Bragg, who is our director of our public art program.

I'm Gretchen Haller, the Executive Director of Arts and Venues.

We want to express our deep gratitude for this proclamation.

We see this recognition as more than a formal gesture.

It's a reflection of our city's core values.

Arts education is not peripheral or merely ornamental.

It is integral to shaping the well-rounded, empathetic, and civic-minded leaders our future deserves.

The proclamation that was just read highlights Denver creates, which is the city's new cultural plan, and our agency's uh citywide commitments in Denver, through our grants, our public art tours, and incredible partnerships, Denver Arts and Venues is committed to ensuring that every child in Denver has the opportunity to create and to be inspired.

As we close out this month, we also want to thank and highlight our partners at the Arts Complex.

Denver Arts and Venues operates the 12-acre campus that's in the heart of downtown.

And our four resident company partners bring thousands of young people and their families to the arts complex year-round.

The Denver Center for the Performing Arts connects with more than 150,000 students each year through acting classes, backstage tours, playwriting, free and low-cost tickets, statewide high school musical theater awards, and the annual DPS Shakespeare Festival.

Colorado Ballet brings the joy of dance to thousands of students annually through classes, student matinees, and deeply discounted student tickets to final dress rehearsals.

And the Colorado Symphony engages young people through youth concerts and bilingual interactive performances, sending musicians directly into schools for coaching and workshops.

And we wanted to make sure anyone that is listening knows and has access to all of those free tickets, discounted tickets, and performances.

So to these partners and to our Denver City Council members, thank you for standing with us to champion the next generation of Denver's creative spirit.

Thank you.

Councilmember Watson, would you please read Proclamation 0421?

Um president, proclamation number 260421, recognizing public health week.

Whereas public health work uh strengthens Denver's health, safety, environment, and economy by uniting all who play a role in stopping health threats before they start.

And building on decades of experience relies on science and data to respond to issues that threaten the well-being of our communities.

And whereas the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment takes a holistic approach to ensuring Denver's people, pets, and environment are healthy by implementing equitable strategies that directly improve lives while serving as a leader and convener among partners across the region.

And whereas Denver utilizes an innovative one health model that recognizes the deep connection between the health of people, animals, and the environment, caring for nearly 10,000 animals every year through the Denver Animal Shelter.

And whereas DDPHE is actively combating key public health challenges, including the overdose and mental health crises by saving lives through harm reduction strategies, community outreach, and evidence-based interventions.

And whereas epidemiologists, disease investigators, and public health nurses work tirelessly to protect Denverites, particularly the most vulnerable from the spread of highly contagious illnesses such as measles through contact tracing, vaccination efforts, and community education.

And whereas DDPHE team members at the Office of the Medical Examiner support Denver families on the worst days of their lives, providing compassionate guidance and resources through the family advocate support team.

And whereas DPHE investigators ensure the places where Deborahs live, work, learn, and play are safe by monitoring the environmental hazards, enforcing health regulations, and addressing risk before they escalate.

And whereas the 2026 theme of National Public Health Week set action recognizes how public health has improved daily life and strengthen our communities and honors the public health workers who show up each day to advocate for policies and practices that promote good health for all Denverites.

Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Denver City Council, Section 1, that the Denver City Council recognizes April 6th through April 12th, 2026 as public health week.

Section two, that the clerk and recorder of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Karen McGowan, Executive Director of the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.

Thank you, Councilmember Watson.

Your motion to adopt.

I move that proclamation 260421 to be adopted.

It has been moved in second comments by members of council.

Councilmember Watson.

Actually, just simply to watch from afar, all of the things that you do, not just in my district, but across the city.

When you consider public health, it's not just simply the things that you can see, the health conditions that DDPHE leans in on in collaboration with Denver Health, but it's also of some of the things you can't see and you can't feel.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, we'll call Council members, Lewis.

Aye.

Albivarez.

Hi.

Hi.

Gilmore.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Aye.

Heinz.

Hi.

Cashman.

Hi.

Parity.

Aye.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Torres?

Aye.

Watson.

Aye.

I'm president Sandoval.

Aye.

Secretary, close voting outside results.

13 ayes.

Thirteen ayes.

Proclamation 0421 has been adopted.

We now have time for the proclamation acceptance.

Who would you like to call it?

Councilmember Watson.

Madam President, I'd like to ask uh Executive Director McGolen and her team, whoever chooses to join, uh, to come forward and make a few comments.

Um, thank you, Councilman uh Watson and Denver City Council members.

My name's Karen McGowan.

I'm the director of the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.

It's an honor to be in front of you and accepting this proclamation, and we really appreciate you recognizing all the important work of public health.

We're actually one of the rare public health agencies that uh combines things that happened before your birth and how you live and trying to keep you healthy, and then how you might die, and making sure that how you die is honored and we figure out why and the cause, and then linking all that data together to provide a better, more healthy living uh circumstance here in Denver.

Um Councilman Watson already recognized Public Health Week next week, uh, whose theme is ready set action.

So I think that quantifies really well what we're trying to do in the prevention space.

The thing that doesn't happen that you never think about because we're doing all the background work, but then we're also ready if the bad thing happens and figuring out how we can uh give you the right service at the right time and the right location and the right response.

Um this proclamation really belongs to our staff, and I know that many of you are very familiar with all the great work that we do, whether or not it's prevention and immunizations or public health investigations or working in residential housing, working in animal protection, working in overdose prevention.

Um, our folks are working really hard every day to make sure that Denverites uh live their best lives, and that is our goal, and we can't do it without your support.

And this past couple of uh years since I've started have been really hard for done for health and for budget and for all the things that we do, and um, we feel very supported by you all and the work that we do, and we're just really appreciative that you value the work of public health and the things that we do in this space.

So I want to thank the council again for this proclamation and for supporting the work that we do.

So thanks.

Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.

Community planning and housing committee 26-0230, a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4211 North Hooker Street in Berkeley.

From the governance and intergovernmental relations committee 26-0327, a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 13, Article 2 of the DRMC to require that contracts, grants, and intergovernmental agreements be filed at the same time as a bill or resolution approving the agreement is filed.

From the South Platte River Committee, 26 030, a bill for an ordinance relinquishing a portion of the utility easement reserved and ordinance number 850, series of 1991, recorded with the Denver Clerk and Recorder at reception number 920095495, located at 805 West 38th Avenue and 26 0316, a bill for an ordinance approving a proposed fourth amendatory agreement between the city and county of Denver and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District for construction of the drainage and flood control improvements for South Platte River.

No change to the contract terms citywide.

Thank you, Councilmembers.

This is your last opportunity to call out an item.

Councilmember Cashman.

You make the vote make the motions for us this evening.

Yes, Council President is under the ball.

Thank you.

I'll do a recap.

Under bills, under resolutions, council resolution 0322 has been called out for questions by councilmember Lewis.

And council resolution 0246 has been called out by comments and a vote by councilmember parody and lewis.

Under bills for introductions, no items have been called out.

Under bills for final consideration, no items have been called out.

Under pending, no items have been called out.

Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens.

Council resolution 0322, a resolution approving a proposed amendatory agreement between the city and county of Denver and DCG West 1 LLC to extend the construction timeline of building three in Council District 11.

Councilmember Lewis, please go ahead with your questions on Council Resolution 0322.

Thank you.

So much appreciated.

I have two questions, and some of them were answered beforehand.

Um and so we'll just get into them.

But I wanted to know how this the change impacts revenue return requirement if someone answered that item.

Do you know what she was saying?

Yes, okay.

I do.

Hi everyone.

Chris Lowell.

Yes.

Um and Councilman Lewis.

I got you.

I'm sorry, I can't change anything about that.

I do apologize if I submissions in advance.

Um Chris Will Department of Opportunity.

Councilwoman, I believe you asked how this change would or would not impact the revenue return agreement that is currently established.

So the short answer is if this um resolution were to pass um this a single milestone within the contract would be changed to allow for an additional 12 months for this particular outbuilding to finish construction.

It is under construction already and then open.

Um, and otherwise the rest of the agreement would be unchanged.

The only question I had.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens.

To provide an automatic license plate recognition ALPR system that includes 50 cameras and the necessary hardware.

Councilmember Cashman, would you please put council resolution 0246 on the floor for adoption?

Yes, Council President.

I moved the council resolution 26 0246.

It has been moved and seconded.

We left off last Monday from questions.

So if any other council members have questions, please feel free to get in the queue.

We'll start with the two who called it out.

Councilmember Parity first.

Um I have comments.

I don't know that I have further questions at this time.

If I do, I'll hop back in, but thank you.

Are there any other colleagues who have questions on resolution 0246?

Councilmember Flynn.

Um thank you, Madam President.

Since I called out for a delay, I wanted to get to some other questions.

Tim Hoffman here.

I think I saw him come in.

When uh photographs are taken under this system, do they go into the evidence.com uh database that we have with Axon for body worn camera and another uh digital evidence?

Thanks for the question, Councilman Tim Hoffman with the mayor's office.

Uh yes, they go from the camera and then they're uploaded into the evidence.com database.

They go in there, they're encrypted somehow.

This is going to go over my head.

I don't know if you can explain it so that lay people can understand.

But what what's the level of encryption uh of these images?

And what I'm trying to get at is if someone if there were to be a breach of evidence.com, which my understanding is uh Axon, I believe has about 2200 license plate reader systems in operation around the country, and there's never been a breach, basically because they stand alone, there's no network connecting them.

But if there were to be a breach, would someone be able to look at that image uh if it were encrypted?

Uh the and I'll I'll likely at some point phone a friend because this is also my head to some degree.

I know Commander Barnes is in the room, but uh the encryption level that is used both on the license plate reader cameras themselves is something called AE AES 128, and then um with evidence.com, it's something called AES256.

Um those are the highest level um encryption services that uh exist currently, they're essentially military grade level encryption.

Um the examples of what it would take to do a brute force hacking of that type of system is you would need a supercomputer operating billions of machines using millions of processors, and even doing that, it would take um billions or trillions of years to break into the system that way.

So um the level of encryption is incredibly high.

Access to the operating system uh at evidence.com to be able to see them.

And a Denver police department will have that.

Will anybody else have that?

No, it'll be closed off to everyone but Denver safety personnel.

To any outside uh sources that can access this somehow and come in and then view it or try to extract data from it.

I see this in the movies all the time.

It seems so easy.

Um, and based on a lot of the concerns that we heard from council members from other community um groups and uh other privacy experts, we have explicit contract provisions in addition to making sure that it's clear that Denver owns its data and that were it to be subpoenaed or otherwise attempted to be um uh obtained that we immediately become parties to that.

We have included explicit provisions in the contract uh that say that Denver's data cannot be included in any sort of shared or pooled database.

And to be clear, we are not connected to any other axon system or any other network that would permit such a thing to happen.

Is that correct?

The license plate reader system that Axon employs is walled off from its other products.

Okay.

Um thank you.

I think that's all I have in the present call.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions from members of the council?

Can you hear me that is thank you?

Um Tim, it's question for you.

Uh what would happen if this was voted down today?

Would the administration work with us on an ordinance?

I saw an article saying the mayor said he would just not do the cameras.

Uh so the the flock cameras have been taken down as of today.

So we correct.

Um so uh were it to be voted down, we wouldn't have a license plate reader system moving forward.

Um I think there's been plenty of discussions around trying to um figure out what the next steps would be getting an ordinance um uh done via the surveillance technology task force or with with other um groups, but in the short term we would not have the benefits of a license plate rear system.

Okay, and is that ordinance something the administration is committed to whether or not this does pass today?

I I certainly think that in the surveillance technology task force we've had for a couple of months now a lot of discussions around the buckets of what an ordinance might look like and the different things.

So I think that we've already been engaging in those discussions and um would continue to be curious from the task force members if you all can speak a little bit to why an ordinance hasn't come forward yet.

Um I can start there and then um the three of us that are on that are council member Flynn, Councilman Lasco Chairs and myself.

Um so from my point of view, the task force has never has never been given that charge.

And so the task force has never been asked, we haven't gotten to that point yet that we did circulate um or the mayor's office circulated, and then my office added some models of ordinances to kind of start down that path, but that was very recently, so it's just sort of not there yet.

Um and then outside of that, um, as you would expect, um, my office, councilwoman Zalsky Terrace's office have been um hard at work researching different models.

Um, and part of that is there's an interplay between trying to understand the ALPR technology, which has been the focal point of the task force because of this contract and the flaw contract, um, and then trying to understand, get our arms around what other forms of surveillance we are using, and we would need to address in an ordinance.

Um, and then in the meantime, a lot of the um third party expertise that sits on the task force has been very engaged with bills of the state legislature, and so um I will sort of um just transparently as myself say that like um I am still working very hard on drafting an ordinance, but then it has to go through it has to go through the it has to be reviewed by the task force, um, it has to be reviewed by our community coalition, and it it's just not um possible to rush it because so much of it is based on understanding what technologies we're even using.

And so the task force has been really productive in in that regard.

Um, but it's just taking time.

And that if you could say estimate like what is the timeline for having an ordinance before council.

I feel a little strange doing that because I would like to propose and would plan to co-sponsor such an ordinance, but I would never be doing that without the buy-in of our coalition, and I assume that Council Member Gonzalski Charles is interested in co-sponsoring others maybe as well.

So um it feels I I sort of am not the sole answer of that.

Um, but our city council drafting attorneys are working on something to start that conversation, um, and then it'll take as you know, you know, individual briefings with everybody committee, all of that.

But um there we've we've at this point done a good job of getting our arms around what models are out there um and kind of what and we've had some very basic conversation among the task force about what the components of an ordinance could be, um, especially if it's meant to address technologies beyond ALPRs, which I think it has to.

Thank you for asking that.

Um thank you, Madam President.

Um, thank you for the question, Councilwoman.

Um just say I agree with what councilwoman parody Oh, it's hard to share over here.

Yes, thank you.

Um no, thank you for the question, and I'll just say that I agree with um most of what councilwoman parody had to say.

I will just add that um I was under the belief that we would be crafting an ordinance out of this task force.

I I was just under that impression as it was created um last year when we um were asked to vote down the contract, right?

Um, was that we would have this and we would be addressing surveillance technology across the board.

Um where and I'll just speak for myself, where I've found a little bit of um complication is that we're constantly being bogged down with this contract and another contract coming forward and not able to everybody's reacting to what's happening and continuing to happen, and that's why I keep asking, can we just stop and get this figured out instead of continuing to um have contracts come before us and us approve them and building of course the plane as it's in motion?

Um, because I'm very interested in we have been hard at work and are getting very close to I think having some kind of language to be able to put in front of people, but it's been it's just been a slow haul.

Um and I will agree to the fact that it's taken us some time to actually get down to what needs to be an ordinance, and I began asking that question months ago and asking our stakeholders, asking um folks from the mayor's office, can we start identifying those things?

And it just took us some time to get there.

Um and a lot of that is because everybody was providing information, um, which has been helpful, right?

It has been helpful and it provided um guidance for what needed to be in contracts, but that's still not ordinance, right?

Um, and so and it's also you know, evident in I think um some of the things we've seen happen with the DPD's um operating uh operating manual and or I'm probably saying that wrong, um, operating policy, operation policy manual, and there's still I think things that need to be happened there as well.

I know that the Office of Independent Monitors still needs to review those things in order for that policy then to be enacted um by DPD.

So there's just a lot of complicating factors, and I feel like we just need the moment to work through that.

Um, and I don't know that we've been able to do that because we've been just reacting constantly.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I agree with uh Councilwoman Gonzalez materials.

I believe that we were aiming toward development of a an ordinance based on what policy should be adopted.

I will point out that the mayor's office sent out in mid-January a spreadsheet asking us uh delineating the issues that were identified in the task force.

I think we started in uh August, so about eight months, and asking us should these live in policy, in police manual or in ordinance.

And uh no member of the task force, including me filled it out.

So I would compare it, you say uh slog, I would compare it to running in molasses because the information is so dense, especially when that committee you might remember Tara Segura from our uh technical services department when she would be presenting on the vendor risk assessment process and and everything, it's very easy for lay people to just start to get you know stars circling your head when you hear them talk.

And so we you know we've relied a lot on them input from technical services that's beyond our lay understanding, at least most of us well, at least me.

I mean I don't want to include everyone else on the on the task force.

I will say though that um uh I don't believe that waiting for an ordinance to do this contract is uh is necessary or even advisable because frankly uh we've looked at sample ordinances that were presented to the task force.

We're developing an ordinance, but very frankly, the contract is gonna be much stronger in guarding against abuses and misuse because it contains actual remedies at law that that can be exercised by the city or by people who are who are uh uh misidentified or misused or or somehow abused by the system, and having that lead on the contract actually gives us recourse that an ordinance would not have.

So I I believe that the uh contract is actually a stronger document than the uh than an ordinance would be.

Thank you.

I just think two things about that.

First of all, the spreadsheet that you're talking about that was circulated the spreadsheet that you're I just have a quick response to that.

The spreadsheet that you're talking about that was circulated, I think was asking task force members to uh to state risks of of the technology.

So it was quite broad.

Um I don't know whether folks filled it out in advance of the meeting because I don't think we had it that part in advance, but we filled it out collectively during the meeting, and my office and probably others also then added things to it.

So we very much did complete that.

Um, and it was a it was a lengthy list of possible risks.

Um, and that's I think the only sort of like work product that's been solicited from the task force, which given who's on it.

I mean, I I would have hoped that we would be used more in that kind of way, but I did complete that.

Um, and then the other the other piece to this is that my concern is that if we um continue to authorize these technologies without a contract in place, um, this contract makes the executive branch and the police department the decision maker and their new revised policy that the um independent monitor has not yet had a chance to go through her process with, makes them the decision maker about any expansions.

And so this is under $500,000.

We approve this, then um we are again out of the decision making loop about um new algorithmic capabilities, new interconnections with other jurisdictions, new connections with other integrations, um, which is really oxon's thing, um, more cameras, camera locations, all of that.

And I have to say, having been at this for well over a year now, I do not think that we will continue to get information sharing that we need to craft an ordinance the minute we vote this contact through.

And I wish that that weren't the case, um, but it has been hard.

Um, and the problem is that now if we if we need legislation addressing all of the different surveillance technologies that we're using, which there are a lot of, and that we don't know a lot about many of them yet, and how exactly they work.

I'm worried that that door will close.

So that's uh having been on this task force.

I don't uh that would be my concern.

I also have a question for Tim, but I don't know if you're done, Councilman Ralphie Dresden, it was your your turn.

So I appreciate that, and I appreciate all your input.

Um it's very helpful, and I would like it seems like Tim has a response to that.

Yeah, I just wanted to make uh just one clarifying point.

So as councilwoman parody talked about, we as the task force came up with a list of risks that we um identified as a task force that were um possible risks when you're talking about this type of technology.

Uh, we then went through and talked about the current mitigation that the city is in engaging in.

There was then a second column added um where we looked for additional mitigation that could further try to um mitigate these risks.

Um and then in an email, I believe I sent it out on January 16th.

Um, there was a another column that was explicitly called out that said, do you believe that this mitigation should exist in rules and regulations or an ordinance?

Um, and so that it was something that was expressly kind of signaled and called out.

So I just wanted to um just clarify that point and then sorry about that.

That's a good say by my knee.

Um, and then uh uh to the second point uh uh around councilwoman parody's concern around being out of the decision loop after this.

Um and I know that this was something that was discussed and um raised last week about um how do we know that a month from now there's not going to be some attempt to um increase or expand and um we as the administration are willing to say that for the existence for the year that this contract is in existence, um, we are willing to say that we will not make any sort of attempt to expand the contract or to add additional cameras while we work on trying to get an ordinance in place.

So um, I just wanted to make that uh statement as well.

For this dollar amount, what could you even add cameras or locations?

Do you think I don't believe so no?

Okay.

Um can you speak a little bit to the relationship between Axon and Homeland Security?

Yeah, uh, so Axon uh has a relationship with the Department of Homeland Security and um ICE, they provide body worn camera and tasers to those entities.

Um they don't have any sort of contracts um for license plate reader technology with those federal entities.

Okay.

Can you speak to the ability for federal agencies again or other cities to access this data?

Yeah, so there are numerous points in the contract where it's made explicit that this is a system that is only Denver um safety personnel who have access to it.

We also, and uh I believe it was uh discussion point last week at some point.

Um, there's a specific contract provision where Axon guarantees that there are no contracts in existence right now that they would have with ICE or DHS or other federal entities that would give them any sort of access.

Um so we spelled out at several points that um it is only Denver safety personnel who have access to this system.

Can you also speak to uh Axon's contract or agreement with the ring camera system?

Uh so I might need to phone a friend on that one.

I think Ben Rubke from Axon is online.

Um so I will stop talking for a second.

Director, can we promote Ben?

After you pee date, Council?

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

As soon as he's on, I'll repeat the question.

Yeah, I heard the question.

It's a question about the partnership between Axon and Ring.

Correct.

Yep.

Ben Ruckke here, key account director for Axon.

Um the partnership allows the police department to, based on an incident at a in a certain area, request video from folks who have reading cameras in the area of the incident.

Um, then the community can potentially get that request from the PD and they say, hey, there was an incident in your area.

If you're willing to share any video that might be relevant to our investigation, click here, and then that piece of video will send directly to the investigating officer's evidence.com account.

So it's a request to the community.

Community can respond.

They can also choose not to even receive those requests from the police department.

And if they do opt to receive those requests, then they have a choice whether or not they want to share or not share video, and then they can only share the video that is associated with the incident.

And then that information goes from the ring cloud directly to evidence.com.

Same way if you had like information on your cell phone or um on any camera in your house or business, uh, you'd be able to share that either through an email or through other meetings.

This just goes directly from ring indevidence.com to make the sharing experience a little more seamless.

But Axon does not access to my ring camera if I have one without my permission, is what you're saying, to be clear.

That's correct.

Just to be even clear, like nobody has the even the PD doesn't have access to ring cameras.

They are asking for someone to share information, which then the user has to opt to say yes, I will share this piece of information, and then they have to click share and move it over to the individual.

There's no, hey, let's see what these cameras uh you know saw over the last 24 hours and get power plunge access to that video stream.

Um the user or the owner of that video has to say yes, I will share this piece of information, and then they have to share it through evidence through ringdavence.com.

But the short answer question is yes, we do not have access to ring cameras.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilwoman Parody.

Um yes.

Sorry, I'm trying to sort questions here.

Yeah, I just the question is for Tim, I think.

Um thank you, Tim.

I what I would like to know from you is whether the mayor has communicated to you that if this contract is voted down tonight, he will then veto any surveillance ordinance that we pass.

Because I have heard that from conversations that I was not in, but with groups that are members of our um coalition opposing surveillance.

Um that's where when I say that I'm worried that um we're not going to be able to have a cooperative, you know, informational relationship to get legislation done.

That's where that's coming from.

No, that is not a discussion I've had with the mayor.

I think part of um part of the um, I think problem is that you know, we we don't have any sort of draft language to respond to, right?

And so, and that's no one's fault, right?

It's taken a long time, but um uh you know, we would continue to um work with the task force and other folks on it.

But it shouldn't be a quid per quo.

I think you can agree to that.

I mean, I our votes on this contract are our votes, um, and the need for a surveillance ordinance would remain regardless of how we as a group vote tonight.

Um, I will continue working on that regardless.

Um I I also haven't really heard a commitment to keep the surveillance task force meeting.

It's been the mayor's office that has convened it.

Um, it certainly could be convened another way.

Um, but the the focal point has been this contract.

Um, I think it's pretty clear from the administration's point of view that that's been the function of the task force is to take feedback um, at least sort of obtusely for our discussions and incorporate them into this contract, which has been done.

This contract addresses a lot of the concerns with Flock.

I don't think this contract addresses a lot of the concerns with Axon, but I'm worried about whether there's a real intention to continue working towards an ordinance um after tonight.

And I just haven't asked that question.

No, and I'm happy to make that commitment.

I think that we have been meeting biweekly.

Um, so we would have been meeting this week, which for a lot of people is spring break.

Um so, but no, like I'm I'm happy to make that commitment right now that we will continue meeting as a task force.

Um I don't think I have other questions.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

I have a few questions.

So there was a Denver Post article today from three former mayors saying it's the strongest privacy protections.

Can you explain what they mean when they say, like in that article, how this contract has some of the strongest privacy protections?

Because that was shared with me by several of my constituents.

That article, I read it, but it doesn't give specificity.

Yeah, um, I'm I'm happy to, and uh for anyone who didn't uh read that article, that was an opinion piece from Mayor's Pena, Mayor Webb, and Mayor Hancock.

Um, so the privacy protections that have been included in the contract are again based on a lot of the conversations the task force has had that we've heard from committee members that we've heard from from other council members.

So I can walk you through a couple of them.

Uh so one of the strongest privacy protections that exists is that throughout the contract there are sections that make it explicit that Denver owns and controls all of its own data, period, full stop.

So any sort of uh suggestion and there were concerns with previous contracts and and other circumstances that our data, Denver's data could be used to either train AI models or could be sold or purchased by um some third-party entities.

Not only do we say that Denver owns and controls its own data, but we have explicit provisions in there that say Denver's data cannot under any circumstances be used for AI training or for any sale or transfer to any third party.

Um there are explicit contract provisions.

This is something that's come up in previous discussions with this body around material changes to the Axon system.

Denver gets a 30-day advanced notice of any material update or change to the license plate reader system.

We then affirmatively tell Axon whether or not we opt in or opt out of whatever that material changes, um, so that if they were in the future to roll out some new feature technology that we disagreed with, that would be something that we would be explicitly carved out from.

We have in the policies and procedures that have been provided to the city council, made explicit the 21 day retention policy.

I sent to this body a list of I think it's about 50 cities across the country that have retention policies.

The vast majority of those cities have 30-day retention policies or longer.

There's a couple that have shorter than uh 21 days, but we have a 21-day retention policy.

We've also included in the operations manual language that makes it clear uh that any sort of change to that retention policy, and I can tell you there isn't any um any uh thought or desire to change that 21 day retention policy, but city council would be informed of any such change in advance.

Um there are explicit provisions around um what this uh what this data can and cannot be used for.

There are full sections that make it clear that there are local and state laws that ban this type of information from being shared with um any sort of federal entity for civil immigration purposes.

There's uh an entire section that talks about um that this uh data and information can't be used for any sort of reproductive health care investigations.

Um, and so making it explicit that Denver owns and controls its own data, reducing the retention policy, and then explicitly calling out um what this data can and cannot be used for, or some of those really robust safeguards that we put in place.

So one of the other questions I have is um, and I don't know if you'll be able to answer it.

When have you ever brought forward a contract for 150,000 for this body to vote on?

I'm unaware of certainly in our administration us doing this.

I think that um it's uh it's an obviously unique circumstance, and it's based on um the discussion and a lot of the concern that we heard in the fall and the winter with the flock contract at that point, and at that juncture, the mayor made it clear that um whatever happens next with either Flock as a vendor or whatever happens next with license plate readers generally that we would involve city council in the process that we would bring this through that process.

And so this is um our attempt to keep true to the mayor's um promise of transparency and collaboration.

The task force members was it made clear that we would be getting a contract and that we would be voting on it.

Like were you were you involved in the process?

Because we don't vote on things that are we don't vote on contracts that are 4999999 and below.

Has to be 500,000.

So I've been trying to do research and figure out when we've ever voted on one since I've been here since 2012, and I can't find one.

So for the task force members was it.

Were you incorporated in this idea that we would bring forward a contract to city council?

No, that wasn't an initiative entirely from the mayor's office in order to give us the option.

I don't think that that was uh the scope of the task force to consider whether the council should vote on something less than 500,000.

And to answer your question, I've been here since that or that that charter amendment came in in 82, and this is the first time that this has ever happened in my uh experience.

Certainly, Mayor McNichols never would have would have done it, uh, nor would uh Mayor Webb and I can't imagine any of the others would have done.

So it's very unique.

And I hope it's not a pattern because we'll be here you know for three weeks for every set of contracts if we did that.

And then can you talk to me about the RFP?

I don't think it was a formal RFP that went out because we do a competitive.

Oh, wait, go ahead, Councilman.

Yeah, uh I know that I had made a request during one of the committees, and Councilman Flynn, I think also made the request, not necessarily for us to vote on it, but that we wanted to at least be aware of any contract regardless of the amount.

Um, and then that's where I think this may have come from.

But I know that we had asked for that, so I just wanted to be clear on that front.

Thank you.

Can you talk to us about the RFP?

Because we have a competitive bid process in the city, and it's often told, I'm often told we have to use this vendor because we went through this competitive bid process.

And we I think lots of council members are told we have to go use this vendor because of the competitive bid process.

So can you talk to me about the competitive bid process this went through?

So we used what's called an informal RFP process, which caps whatever the contract is at 150,000.

And there are also in this space as it relates to licensed plate reader technology, just not that many vendors that can provide the technology at the scale that a city like Denver needs to provide.

So even in the informal RFP process, we ended up getting five bids from Axon from Motorola from Flock, which was the current vendor.

The Denver Police Department technology services were able to go through their kind of scoring process, making sure that it was compliant with our vendor risk assessment.

They were able to look at kind of essentially do a tabletop exercise to test out each of each of the products, look at the different safeguards and things like that.

And ultimately, it was Al Gardner, the executive director of our department of safety who made the selection of axon based on some of those factors, including the safeguards and kind of the level of data security and the fact that we had worked with them for over a decade in other spaces.

Okay.

So I have one more question for you.

So you just said that there's a commitment not to extend cameras or extend the contract within the next the year of the contract if it were to get passed.

What happens three months from like if this were to pass?

What happens?

Are you gonna go out for our official RFP?

Like I don't quite understand that the next process because I feel like city council voted down the contract last May, it got extended, and now we didn't go out for like a regular RFP.

We did a mini one, and now here we are.

So what happens next?

It's a little tough to answer what we're gonna be looking at six months from now, right?

I think what I I like the guarantee that I can give is that for this contract for the next year, there won't be an add-on or an extension that would add our capacity to add cameras.

Um I know that last week you raised um some frustration that uh this feels kind of last minute and that we're um trying to push it through in a very um quick manner.

So I think certainly I hear that um uh that critique and um were we to talk about an amendment to the contract or things like that, um, we would make sure that there is plenty of time built in and consultation with city council so that it doesn't feel rushed.

But um the the guarantee that I can give is that for the next year that this contract would be in existence, we wouldn't three months from now, for example, um, do an amendment to add capacity and to add add cameras, it would be um at that 50 camera level um for the pendency of this contract.

Thank you.

I don't have any further questions.

Do we have any other questions from council members?

All right, do we have comments from council members before we vote?

We want to be added to the queue.

Councilmember Hines, you want to start us off?

And then other council members as you see fit, please join the queue.

Thank you, uh Madam President.

Um I want to I wasn't here last week, so um I do want to um take a moment to explain my vote and uh the values behind my decision.

Um so I will be uh voting in favor of the contract.

Um it's not a decision I take lightly.

I've heard clearly from residents, some who strongly support the technology, and some who are deeply concerned about privacy and surveillance.

Um so I want to start there because privacy is a value I personally hold.

It's not theoretical for me.

Um I use Graphene OS on my mobile phone.

I use I run PyHole at home.

Uh if you're not familiar with those technologies, those are both very privacy-based technologies.

Um I don't use iOS, I don't use Android.

This is a special operating system that uh prevents that information from being shared wholesale to uh to Android.

Um I take real steps to limit how much data uh about me is collected and shared.

And uh so when people raise questions about surveillance, I understand them and I share those concerns.

Uh we also have to ground ourselves in another reality.

Uh we live in a world where data shares uh data sharing is already being collected constantly, often by private uh private companies with far less accountability than your so the question in front of us is not whether data exists.

The question is what are our values as a city and how do we govern technology in a way that reflects those values?

We were burned by flop.

There's no question about that.

Both the vendor and in my opinion, decisions within the executive branch contributed to a loss of trust, and that matters because trust is also a core value.

But I don't believe our value is fear, and I don't believe our value is to say we should never work with any vendor ever again.

Our value should be accountability.

Our value should be learning from past data doing better with clearer contracts, stronger guardrails, and better compartmentalization of data and real oversight.

Another value that we have to talk about is safety.

Crime is down citywide, and that's good.

But if you look at where crime is happening, there's still a huge concentration all over District 10.

When I started on council in 2019, the police chief said we were the sixth, excuse me, fifth safest major city in the country.

And the people of District 10 wanted a reduction in uh in the amount of police.

Now, with this sustained concentration of crime in District 10, the people of District 10 are calling for more safety.

And I hear from constituents who are frustrated, who feel like more needs to be done.

And they're not wrong.

If they expect uh they're not wrong to expect that if their car is stolen, we do everything we can to get it back.

They're not wrong to expect that if someone harms them or their loved ones, that person is held accountable.

Safety is a value.

So what do we do when values are in conflict?

We don't ignore one value in favor of the other.

We find balance.

So that's why I'm supporting this limited one-year contract.

It's not a citywide deployment.

50 cameras are fewer than 20 intersections in District 10.

We're talking about roughly two intersections.

Single camera blocks looks in only one direction, so it takes at least four cameras to cover fully cover an intersection.

That's a measured step, not a blank check.

But I want to be clear, contracts are not enough.

So I'm great.

Uh I I have solace to here, the council member preparity and council member Gonzalo Scutieris are already talking about uh legislation.

And Denver, the executive branch set sets rules and regulations.

Our role is to set policy through ordinance.

So we need to do the work to create an ordinance.

Just as we use the lessons we learned from Flock in this contract, we will learn lessons from this axon contract that will make a better order.

That means defining our values in law.

Limiting scope.

Making sure information is only retained as long as it serves a clear public purpose that serves Denver's values and no longer.

And that retention policy is set to the entity with so that no entity with conflicting values can come to Denver and demand we share that information.

Speaking of values, I'm working with Council Member Elvidrez on best value contracting because I believe every contract we enter should reflect Denver's values.

I believe this is another conversation that should go further into values.

Over the next year, we should work together with our colleagues, the mayor, the surveillance task force, and the public to build a policy framework that ensures these technologies are used in a way that reflects who we are as a city.

But that is not just about the contract.

It's about committing to do the work to ensure the public safety, privacy, accountability, and transparency are not competing ideas, but shared values that guide how Denver moves forward.

Thank you, Madam Prison.

Councilwoman Parity?

Yeah, um.

So I really think that we made a mistake when we allowed Flock to expand in the city without our oversight.

Um, and I think that the people in the city agree with that, um, and we really need to not make that mistake twice.

The problem here is that Axon's technologies are significantly different from Flocks.

Um, and we are doing our best to understand how this vendor, which has this focus on vertical integration as opposed to a horizontal nationwide network, which is what Flock was, um, how that vendor needs to be regulated.

The contract in front of us, like I said, addresses the mistakes we made with Flock.

It talks about interjurisdictional sharing, it talks about data privacy, um, but it leaves unaddressed the very new and different issues with Axon, which is the vendor that it's that this contract is with.

Um, and this is going to keep happening if we keep considering surveillance technology contract by contract without a regulatory framework.

Um, I agree with Councilmember Heinz, we're the legislative branch, we need to do that.

Um, and I will work on that regardless.

But if we keep authorizing the technologies before that process is done, we are creating the continued risk of problems.

Um, and more specifically, um so to Councilmember Flynn's question.

Um it is true that Axel, as I understand it, right, and this is all um keeping information and understanding the information about these topics is challenging, like it takes us time.

But my understanding is that um it's true that Axon keeps its data segregated for the LPRs versus other things.

Um, but but what I don't understand very well is um how they their fusis center brings together the different streams of surveillance data that we have from throughout the city, which there are a number of um and layers them to what it says on the website is axon fusis brings live video and plate reads from Axon outpost ALPR cameras, which is what we're contracting for if we vote this through, together with other sensors and data, not sure what those are, to provide unified real-time insights, enabling agencies to solve crimes involving vehicles faster.

We don't know what that is.

And specifically, we do know that these cameras have live streaming, live streaming capability.

We've been told that we're not, we don't need to be concerned about that because they're limited sort of by their battery power.

But Flock replaced their cameras with better models constantly.

We wouldn't even know when they were doing that.

They would come in, you know, once they're permitted, they have the ability to do that.

I know that Axon is working to make their cameras have longer power over time and we'll do that.

Um in 2022, nine out of 12 members of Axon's AI ethics board resigned because they had raised concerns with the company about developing surveillance technology that had those real-time streaming capabilities.

And in their statement from four years ago, they said for years the board has warned Axon against the use of real-time persistent surveillance in its products, but Axon has proposed a degree of surveillance that is sweeping this type of surveillance undoubtedly will harm communities of color, others who are over policed.

Um, at this point, that's all of us, and likely well beyond that.

So that's not something that the flock cameras could do.

Um, and in addition to that, um, it was news to me to understand that DPD also can access traffic cameras for live streaming.

I've been telling people that traffic cameras couldn't be used in that way.

I had no idea.

Um we also have, I think, under 300 but hundreds of halo cameras that have video feed capability.

Um I still don't have a great understanding of how if we are buying into Axon's algorithm that has the ability to read plates, recognize vehicles, um, they have worked on facial recognition and tested it in other jurisdictions.

In Colorado, that's regulated, although not banned at the state level.

We don't have a city level ban on facial recognition.

Um, and then it's not just you can recognize a person not just by their face, you can recognize a person by clothing, by their walk, um, and other things like that.

These algorithms are learning to do all of that.

Um and if we are purchasing access to this algorithm, we're also purchasing this fusis software that is supposed to bring together all these feeds of data.

Um I just don't think we have our arms around the implications of that.

Um in addition to that, um, the changes to the the contractual provisions that say that no new features will be added without the city's consent, um, that does not include us, that doesn't include the public, that addresses the city attorney's office, DPD, the mayor's office.

Um I I'm just not able to take on trust that the mayor's office and DPD and everyone else will meaningfully collaborate with council and the public because we have had those flock cameras on on a state network that included thousands and thousands of users, and with three federal agents with logins who report to Cash Patel all the way until last October, after we had raised these concerns.

And so I I cannot proceed on trust here.

I wish that I could.

Um, and so they are the decision maker makers under the contract, and even the revised DPD policy, um, which has not gone through full independent monitor review that's required by our ordinances, it says that city council will be notified of any material changes, not you know notified is different than what we would be looking at in an ordinance.

Other cities have ordinances that require a really large level of transparency about this kind of technology at the front end, um, that if applied to a contract like this would help us understand all these outsiding outstanding questions about how the data is being stacked.

Um axon has been very uh open and assertive in the marketplace about that vertical integration is its thing and that what it is trying to do is um stack different forms of surveillance together to be able to track people, videos, predict patterns, do predictive policing, all of that stuff.

Um, and for us to add more of their technologies to the city without a regulatory framework, I just think is an abdication of our responsibilities.

Um, there's examples.

FUCSIS did a training for the Atlanta police department demonstrating how police could set up an alert to look across the city for someone wearing a specific color of clothing or holding a bag.

Those are things that Flock Alp Flocks algorithm could do.

Um I don't I don't have any understanding of whether the search terms within Axon's ALPR system are strictly limited to plates and vehicles, or whether they include other kinds of objects and things as Flocks did.

Um and then I also want to kind of point out that some of the other the integrations that um Axon has available, even if we're not buying them.

Um yes, the ring integration, the OR integration, the citizen integration, which is uh or is like retail cameras, um all of those are things where right now the idea is that the people and um entities that buy those products can choose to upload their data.

Um but what that enables is for people to police their neighbors.

Um a lot of the private cameras in the city are pointed at people's homes.

Um, they're not heavily regulated, and so the product having that integration is a problem.

If you are someone who thinks that your neighbors might be interested in over policing you or might be suspicious of you for reasons that have nothing to do with who you are or what you're actually doing, you should be very concerned about these integrations.

Um they also have a um an integration with sound thinking, which is audio detection similar to ShotSpotter.

Audio detection is another area of concern.

Are we going to work on recognizing voices?

Um, even though we're not purchasing those integrations right now, DPD and the executive branch under this contract are the decision maker in the future.

Council and the public do not formally have a role.

I appreciate the statements from Mr.

Hoffman, but it's a lot riding on that sort of promise.

I just think that we need to legislate.

Um, and then finally, in terms of data sharing, um, the main thing I want to point out is that everybody agrees that this company will comply with subpoenas, and it has to, it doesn't have a choice about that.

Um, if we create data, we are at real risk of creating data that does get subpoenaed, say, by a jurisdiction in Texas, because in Texas it is illegal for women to access reproductive health care.

It is illegal for them to travel across state lines to do that.

And so it is only a matter of time until Texas sending subpoenas to Axon, perfectly legal subpoenas asking for any footage of of certain plates that they know have come to Colorado for health care.

Huge numbers of women are coming from Texas and other jurisdictions to Colorado for health care.

Um, and in those states, that is legal.

So we are creating that risk by creating the data.

Um, another example of that is that the polis administration complied with several federal subpoenas that that were really fishing for uh information to break apart families of unaccompanied minors, so kids who have come across the border alone and been reunified with family or friends in the United States.

They were framed as subpoenas that were about uh like safety and welfare checks.

Data was sent to the federal administration, and then a whistleblower within the police administration figured out what they were actually going for, and that it had been a violation of state law to comply, but not before that data went out.

So, again, we're creating data.

Um, we have to recognize that the legal system is being used to get access to all of these things, in some cases perfectly legally, because federal law and the law of many other states um is not aligned with Denver law or Colorado law.

There was a um West Westward op-ed from Representative Javier Maverick that I thought got at this really beautifully today, and I hope that you all saw that.

And then finally, um we've gotten slightly different answers about data sharing with other jurisdictions.

The revised operations manual language would allow that, and we've heard repeatedly from Axon representatives that as of today they don't have the ability to just sort of push a button and say, okay, Denver is now sharing all of its plate data with Castle Rock or whatever it might be, but that they are working on developing that.

And even from the mayor's original statement about this contract, I believe that the intention of the police department and the administration is to go back to that kind of automated data sharing with other jurisdictions, which then again just weakens our control over the data.

Um, and even if we're being more thoughtful about who we share that with, um, that's again a decision that council is letting out of its hands if we vote through this contract tonight without legislating first.

Um, another recommendation from Axon's own AI ethics board said Axon should work with partner agencies to determine the shortest possible retention period for ALPR data that will serve law enforcement needs sufficiently and set that as its default on its ALPRs.

Axon didn't take that that retention period.

The 21-day policy that we're adopting, although it's less than 30 days, um, is highly anecdotal, and it's not based on this this kind of analysis that this ethics board recommended to the company.

Um so I think our fundamental mistake here is in continuing to add more surveillance technology to the city before we regulate it.

And to Councilmember Alviders' question, um, I think we're we know how long legislative processes take around here, but we are on the cusp of being able to actually undergo that kind of process and talk about a real policy.

Um, and I think we should do that, and I think we should essentially not let through any further surveillance technology until we have done that.

Thank you, Madam President.

We have one minute tell public comment, so we'll have to stop the queue and go to public comment and then start.

Council Secretary, do you have the queue as it is so that we can go to Councilman Gilmar, Cashman Flynn, and then Lewis and anyone after Lewis can be added?

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Um if there are no objections from members of council, we will be hearing from you again, and thank you all for attending.

Council will now reconvene from our earlier session.

We will continue with consideration of council resolution 0246, approving a proposed agreement between the city and county of Denver and Axon Enterprise Inc.

to provide an automatic license plate license plate recognition system that includes 50 cameras and the necessary hardware.

Nick's in the queue for council member comment is Councilmember Gilmer, followed by Cashman, Flynn, Lewis, and then Torres.

Councilmember Gilmer.

Thank you.

Governance means good faith working relationships.

That hasn't happened.

The facts are that Mayor Johnston did what he wanted and he skipped over counsel with Flop.

That misstep did not go away.

So now he's throwing counsel a crumb with this $150,000 axon contract.

Like we're inept in creating laws to protect people's constitutional rights.

But the mayor can just skip over counsel again and then say, see, council won't act.

And now the mayor, being paternalistic, is forced to act to protect everybody.

This is not going to go away.

Council has created not one law, not one protection beyond this contract to create guardrails and not allow the Department of Safety, the Denver Police Department, or state or federal law enforcement to have unfettered access.

There's not one protection for the vulnerable people that live in our city and depend on us to craft laws to protect them.

Young people like the ones that spoke tonight during public comment.

I don't want their facial recognition in an axon database because they drove through an intersection by a park that's part of a place network investigation in our city.

Immigrants and refugees.

On Saturday, I spent a couple of hours at the My City Academy in the Green Valley Ranch library.

It was full of immigrants and refugees who want to learn how our city operates.

How many of you are worried about mass surveillance cameras in our city?

Because they did not even feel safe enough to raise their hand all the way up.

People seeking medical care.

Mayor Johnston was so ready to praise the technology for helping solve a dear friend's murder, Jack Scratton, that he didn't even understand how it works.

Then by all means, this council must create the laws necessary for transparency and safety.

I cannot believe them because power concedes nothing without pressure.

And we, this body, are the lawmakers, and we need the time to craft the appropriate laws to protect our community members.

But Tim, when you said that there's billions of years of encryption, I just have to say, come on.

Come on.

How do you even quantify that?

That's some axon in their little office, throwing that out there.

You said militarized.

None of these people in this room need to have militarized equipment to craft how we behave.

Ring camera footage.

A lot of people, myself included, have not by choice, but following along Savannah Guthrie's mom.

They said they scrubbed the line to find that footage.

No, they didn't.

She didn't even have a contract with ring.

After nine months of her not having an active contract, they still were able to find that data by scrubbing.

What they did was they went to a data server, they went and got the information.

We don't know how much information they have in files for all of us.

There is no way we can trust this mayor, the police department, or this council, if we don't craft a law that enforces people's constitutional rights.

We don't even know.

But it could be billions of years of encryption.

Or we actually vote no on this tonight and do our job and craft laws.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Truth is I've been a supporter of Denver Police Department, consistent supporter for my 11 years on City Council.

I've supported every budget request that's come before me.

I've uh directed additional money from the annual district six budget for a variety of projects assisting uh DPD District 3, which covers my council district.

I've sponsored proclamations put forth by Denver Police Museum to honor lost officers.

I've partnered collegially with Chief Thomas on safety related policy.

I recognize that maintaining public safety is perhaps the primary responsibility of any elected official.

Capturing criminals, the number one stated goal of automatic automated license plate reverse only goes so far in reducing crime.

As long as there's a virtually endless stream of individuals who see their only choice of getting their ends met by breaking is by breaking established laws, putting one person in jail has a minimal effect on reducing crime.

We are dangerously underfunding after-school programs.

Child care is nowhere near what could be called affordable for a majority of Denver families, mental health care, drug treatment beds, affordable attainable housing just for a start.

And chronic poverty is a whole other problem that must be addressed.

What do you think America's founders would have said if they were told, yep, you're free from the king and queen, but we're building this system where we're going to know where all you folks are and where you've been at all times.

The possible misuse of this system cannot be ignored.

Um, flock, ring, axon, maybe separated by technicalities at present time.

But if they are, they're only a few uh clicks away from being one giant surveillance system that if it doesn't terrify us, I wonder why.

We have citizens right now.

I have friends who are American citizens, not waiting for their citizenship to be adjudicated, but American citizens who are afraid to travel right now because of the abuses being perpetrated by the administration in power right now.

Um, and finally, um, to have put this contract forth before the surveillance task force charged with considering the topic uh has had time to craft an ordinance makes no sense.

We just spoke in committee today, uh, my good friend Councilman Watson and I about a moratorium to hold off on building data centers and the critical formation of the task force that's going to look at the policy to address that issue.

Um I will be woefully disappointed if any kind of outcome such as this uh happens to take place.

Finally, um 50 cameras is the beginning.

It is not the end goal.

If this contract is approved, um I don't know how many the total will be.

It was 111 with flock.

I would see no reason if this council does approve this ordinance that it wouldn't just be a continuing series of add-ons until they reach the full network they feel necessary.

Now I believe that these cameras provide a tool to aid law enforcement in their work.

I just think the potential dangers of the surveillance system that we're inches away from on a nationwide basis that could be easily fused outweighs um the current request.

So I will be a note tonight.

Okay, Councilmember Clay.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Uh, around October or November of last year, there was a story here regarding the flock system that made not just local or national but international news.

And that was when a woman driving through the town of Bomar was approached by a police sergeant and falsely accused, uh, not while she was driving through, but at her home.

Uh but they had identified her uh truck as going through Behmar at the time that a uh uh porch pirate stole some packages from porch, and she was falsely accused of being that person.

And uh it made international news because she eventually had uh fortunately she had a vehicle that had uh video in it, and she could prove where she was and what she did and that she did not stop at this house, but she had to prove herself innocent, and uh that woman is a constituent of mine.

In fact, I spoke with her before it made the papers, and I spoke with her since then several times.

I spoke with her again last week, and she supports this contract.

She supports this contract because she believes that it is a legitimate law enforcement tool, as we heard last week from some of the folks testifying, when the officers are properly trained and when there are guardrails around it.

And so with that, I want to basically state my view that we have the guardrails around this.

So much of the opposition that I've received from in the last couple of weeks in email, a couple of phone calls, are based on concerns about what the flock system uh the abuses and misuse under the flock system uh that was allowed.

We took those experiences, and I don't believe that the folks have been emailing us are aware of the contents of this contract and how it has no national network.

Uh Axon has 2200 plus clients using ALPRs nationwide.

Not a single one is connected to any of the others.

Uh let me address some of the points that came up in questioning and in comments so far.

Uh people who have ring cameras at their house cannot share them with DPD on their own.

The only way a ring video is shared with DPD is if a crime occurs nearby, and Denver police identify there's a house across the street that has a ring camera, we're gonna knock on their door and see if they're willing to share that video with them.

And if they are, the investigator on that case sends that homeowner an email with a link for them to use to upload that video.

I know that's how it happened because I did that.

I don't have a ring camera, but I have a camera on my front porch, and my across the street neighbor's work truck was broken into, and his tools were stolen one night.

And uh a police detective uh knocked on my door and asked me if I picked up any of that video, and if I did, would I be willing to share it with her?

And so I looked, and yes, there was video footage of it, and I got a link from her, and I sent her the uh the clip of that video.

I cannot on my own, unsolicited, send a ring camera video to DPD and report on my neighbors that I don't like.

That's not a crime.

So let's let's dispense with that.

As far as uh security of the data, we own the data.

Axon doesn't own the data.

We own it, and it is in within evidence.com.

We control everything in evidence.com.

There is so much other material that's in there, never been hacked, never been leaked, and none of those other 2200 systems has ever been hacked.

Uh but uh with that level of encryption, I don't know if it's a billion years or a trillion years, but that's all beyond me anyway.

But I do know that you can't read the data without the platform to read it.

It would it wouldn't look like a car.

Uh the uh the contract prohibits pooled and shared data sets.

The control lies entirely with Denver.

We don't have facial recognition as a policy, the city does not use it.

We have neither the hardware nor the software to use facial recognition, and beyond that, the Axon ALPR system doesn't take pictures of faces.

It takes pictures of cars.

It doesn't take pictures of people walking down the street.

Uh I believe the testimony we had and committee was that it's activated by by heat signatures.

And a person walking down the street, 98.6, it just simply isn't enough.

The uh it takes pictures of cars.

We don't do facial recognition.

The 21 day data retention, which is less than the the current uh the old contract of 30 days, makes it very unlikely that any subpoena would be successful for our data, especially at the federal level, because it takes longer than that to put a case together and to issue us a subpoena for anything.

Uh so I'm not as concerned about that.

Uh the folks in this room, members of the council, the folks sitting here, folks may be watching on channel eight.

If you drive by, if this contract passes and we put up these 50 cameras at I think 17 locations, and you drive by and a picture of your car is in it, you will not be looked at.

No one's looking at it.

The only reason it's accessed is if your vehicle, you call in and say, hey, my car was stolen.

Here's the license plate.

Can you look up to see if you found it on the system?

Then they look at it.

But they're not sitting up there just looking at people going back and forth.

Are you under surveillance if no one's looking at you?

What we have is a passive repository of images that can be accessed when there is a criminal incident.

So if I have one, and I hope I do if it passes at uh Federal and Evans or Federal and Jewel right up the street, both of them high accident locations where a number of pedestrians have been killed and hit and run, uh, crashes, and the driver takes off.

So if I have a camera there and somebody gets hit or a car gets hit, and the uh one vehicle drives off, and a witness tells DPD it was a red Nissan.

Okay.

I might drive by there later in my Chevy.

Uh someone else might drive by in a white Hyundai or a blue Ford F-150.

No one's looking at those.

The investigating officer goes into the goes into the data set, he says, show me red Nissans at Federal and Evidence or Federal and Joule.

And if one went by, they say, ooh, okay, there it is.

That might be it.

What happens without the camera is I tell the officer, a red Nissan hit that young person who was just killed.

And what the investigating officer then has to do is go to the Colorado DMV database and start trolling through it for all the red Nissans registered in the state.

So it makes investigating crimes and incidents like this significantly harder.

I believe that we have the uh uh the guardrails in place to support the privacy of the folks, like I said, if every any of you leave here and you drive by a camera, no one's looking at you unless your car gets stolen or it's reported in some kind of a criminal incident.

Two million photos, maybe 10,000 are looked at in the course of an investigation.

So are you under surveillance if no one's looking at you and there's no reason to look at you?

And there's no reason to look at you.

I have very little concern about uh breaches.

Uh, from my understanding of all of our presentations and all the testimony trying to hack into the evidence.com database when it's not connected and it's not part of a network would be like uh like trying to hack into an AARP flip two phone.

Right?

That has no that doesn't have internet access at all.

And so uh I believe it's essential that we keep uh a system like this in operation.

And I again repeat what I said during uh the questioning period that there will be an ordinance coming forward at some point, but I think it's appropriate to do the contract ahead because again, I believe the contract has stronger safeguards and recourse than an ordinance will have with high-level policy.

The contract has the most controls, and with those controls that are written in this contract, I'm very comfortable with it.

Uh so thank you, Madam President.

Appreciate it.

Except we have Councilwoman Lewis.

Thank you so much, and I hope my connection is a little bit better now.

Uh-huh.

Of course, I wanted to start out with thanking everyone who came out last week to give testimony, as well as those that came tonight to give testimony.

Um I'm a no on this item, and I'm a no on this item for several reasons.

The first reason is that I'm not comfortable with approving this kind of technology offered by this contractor in this current political moment.

Exxon has open ties to DHS and other federal agencies.

They are a multi-million dollar company that has a variety of commitments.

It is made to various institutions that may be in conflict with one another.

I asked when this item came to committee if they wanted to offer any thoughts on the current political moment and was flatly told that they would provide a statement.

Last week I asked for the response to be read at council, and it was, and I will paraphrase the response says that Axon takes no stance on things that is asked to do and simply does them.

This contractor is stepping into a charged political environment and would become an actor in that environment if we approve this contract tonight.

I think a minim at minimum it requires some kind of acknowledgement that they are in they are in fact a part of this moment, and to receive a response that abdicates responsibility for the consequences of winning this contract is unacceptable to me.

The second major reason is that this kind of technology is invasive, invasive, disproportionate to the efficacy it provides.

The mayor's office and the Denver Police Department have done an excellent job of reducing car thefts in the city over the past few years.

However, less than 4% of all of the stolen cars received in Denver are attributed to the ALPR systems, according to DPD's own estimates.

The invasiveness of this technology is made even worse when it comes to the accuracy of the information it collects.

Plates capture rate is 89%, and the accuracy rate, read rate of those plates is reported at 96%.

That means that we are misidentifying hundreds of thousands of plates, which in turn raises the risk of innocent people being caught up in the system, and we've seen that.

Misidentification aside, all of the data collected by the reader will sit in a database that Denver does not own.

This data will supposedly be deleted after 21 days, but that will live in policy and is not a requirement under the contract.

Having seen other examples that live in policy and not an ordinance, charter, or contract, I'm skeptical that this would receive notice that we would receive notice if the policy were to change suddenly.

I do not support something as important as the record keeping requirements to live outside of the contract here.

I'm not opposed to the use of red light cameras and other uses of technologies.

In fact, in 2024, I co-sponsored a budget proposal to increase red light camera systems in the city.

However, this kind of system where the city does not own the data belt database and the technology is automated without oversight.

I can simply not support.

Additionally, it should be the city itself that stores and keeps records for the ALPR system in centralized storage that the city owns.

For that reason, for those reasons above, I am a no.

Thank you so much for the time.

Thank you.

Council McClare and a country first.

Sorry about that.

You're good.

Thank you.

Me?

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I'll also be a no tonight.

There's a um there's a saying, uh, everyone's probably heard it.

Uh, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Um, my district is heavily Latino, uh, immigrant and allies.

Um, it only takes one time for a vendor to lie to us for us to lose trust.

Um, that has happened.

Um, so more follow-up has to be done, and this isn't at that level yet.

Um, of we're used to seeing contracts come through after a full RFP.

Um that didn't happen either time.

Um we're used to seeing or being able to point to uh what are the regulations about this then if uh uh questions aren't fully answered in a contract.

What are penalties?

Um one of the things that I think is weakest for me is um it's a pretty light financial burden.

150,000 um is not uh a ton of money.

Um a vendor come back and say um your data was accessed, um tons of people are being uh information is being shared in a way that we didn't intend.

Um that's irreconcilable uh for folks if that happens down the line.

Um, and that is a much bigger cost, I think, for us if we don't know what uh penalties additional to uh ending a contract could potentially be to a vendor who lies to us.

Um and uh so I do feel like there are um more things that my colleagues, members of this surveillance team or task force have mentioned.

I was also hoping that that team was gonna be more of a sounding board for future policy that we clearly need um than uh it has been so far.

So I'm willing to wait for that.

I'm not a forever know.

Um I I realize I'm carrying around a tracking uh device everywhere I go.

Um, that I have ring cameras that we use heavily.

Um there are a lot of ways that I interact with technology.

Um, but we're here to talk about putting them throughout our city in ways that most residents may not even realize that they're there.

So I do feel like our our burden of responsibility is higher.

Um I'll also say that we successfully added uh a three million dollar um uh obligation to a community-led safety grant program.

Um now that's not using um city general fund dollars, um, it's using uh funding that we got from the Broncos sale, but that's to do exactly what my community wants us to put more money into instead of uh policing or policing tools is working with community on how do you want to address community safety and how can we get there.

Um coincidentally, we need a hundred thousand dollars to get a third-party vendor on board.

So if this does not pass, Tim, I may come knocking on your door for this money.

Um, but uh uh, but all joking aside, these are all things like all tools are needed, right?

That community of a place um where they can request um better lighting, um event activation in their community, um, um daylighting intersections so that people feel safer crossing the street.

There are a variety of ways that we can make our neighborhoods um feel and be safer.

Um this may be another one, and I'm willing to consider that at another time, but tonight it just doesn't have my support.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um this is a really tough one, I think, because everyone here is right.

Right.

This is like the reality of this situation is everyone here is right.

Everyone is who has concerns about privacy, they're right.

Everyone who has concerns about community safety and wants to use this as a tool with safeguards for um to fill the gap between the number of police officers we have and the number of uh police officers we would need.

Should we not use this technology?

That's that's right.

Everything about this balance is fair.

Um I am a yes tonight.

I am very supportive of this technology.

I think that it is it is very well, this is a very well-written contract.

Um I appreciate the work that all of the council members have done to um push the mayor's office to ask the questions to reach out to DPD to insist on all of the things that need to be buttoned up.

And I appreciate that.

Thank you guys so much for um you know for sticking with that.

I also think that now the contract that we have sitting in front of us is buttoned up.

This is the best contract I have ever seen in seven years here in terms of balancing the need for privacy and the need for community safety, um, which is why I'll be supporting it.

In 2022, there was a biker that was killed in what was then district five.

I lost East Colfax in redistricting in 2023, but at the time it was my district.

It was incredibly sad, and it remains unsolved to this day, and truly if we had had the ability to be able to read license plates and look at the description of the car because we have the description of the car, and could potentially have seen where it went, it might be solved instead of having a situation where we have an entire family grieving with no closure because this continues to be a hit and run death of a biker in my district, and so as I sit here and I listen to everyone who has really good points and truly agree with all of them.

I think my goal and the goal that my residents have asked me as their elected official to come to is to say we need a balance between privacy, between and between safety, and I think that with this contract, which is a year long, only one year, that it breaches that right balance and it gives us the time to be able to write that ordinance that I have been asking for for a year.

I'm really looking forward to it.

Um to have a more in-depth conversation so that the next time a contract comes, we have the safeguards in place in terms of the legislative piece as well.

Legislation takes time.

I want it to be right now too, but you know, I've been working on legislation for two and a half years, and it is what it is, right?

We are short staffed.

That's really frustrating, but it is what it is.

So, no judgment on the fact that we don't have an ordinance yet, I really want one.

Um but I get why we don't have one.

So in the meantime, what we have in front of us here is a contract.

I can tell you, you guys hear me say this all the time, council members.

I can tell you with 95% confidence and a 2.4% margin of error exactly what the residents of district five think about community safety.

It is their number one priority, and it has been since 2020.

And I know that because I go out and I ask them every year, and every year it comes back with that same data for us.

So I will be a yes tonight because I know that while not all of the residents of district five want this, the majority do.

And I believe that this is this contract in front of us and the guardrails that are written into this contract in front of us safeguards that are appropriate, and they're going to meet the needs of our residents in terms of that balance I was talking about for the next year while we get this ordinance written.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Watson.

Oh, councilman Gonzalez could be out of it sorry, sorry, sorry.

It was fine, it wasn't free chance.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, you know, I want to start by being very clear.

Um surveillance has been weaponized against vulnerable and disenfranchised communities for generations.

My ancestors' elders were subject were subjected to undue surveillance, and this is just a new iteration of their experience.

I do not support mass surveillance, especially in these times with our current federal government government.

Not because I don't care about safety, but because I care deeply about the kind of city we're trying to build.

I've been a part of the surveillance task force because I realize and I know that this isn't gonna just go away.

Just because I may not agree with mass surveillance, doesn't mean that there should be there shouldn't be any guardrails implemented.

And so I am committed to that.

Um just as councilwoman parody um mentioned as well.

Councilwoman Sawyer, I appreciate that you understand where we're coming from as far as trying to get legislation through.

Um and as you know, sometimes it is a it's a slow slow haul in these walls here.

Um what troubles me the most right now is not just the technology in front of us, but the pace and process that we have endured to decide on this contract tonight.

At serving on the surveillance task force, I've said this a couple of times.

I was led to believe that we were crafting policy, real policy that would guide how surveillance technology is used to ultimately be implemented into municipal code.

Instead, as members of the task force, we found ourselves reacting, reacting to contracts, reacting to timelines, reacting to decisions that feel like they're already halfway made.

And although the various concerns and feedback has been taken from those conversations, which I greatly appreciate, uh, and information has been collected from task force members and applied to this contract and to the DPD operating manual policies, which still have to be reviewed by the independent monitor.

And I know you have a pretty big workload and and not a lot of support there.

Um we still have fallen short of incorporating the guardrails and ordinance to all of the surveillance task force members that have devoted hours upon hours of time and shared your expertise and your knowledge.

I thank you, and I look forward to our continued collaboration on the task force.

I also do want to thank the mayor's office for following up on the questions that I've had specific to this contract.

Tonight I will be voting no on the Axon contract because we are not ready, and we do not yet have the ordinance in place that define how technology like this should be used or how we prevent misuse.

The misuse of this kind of technology is not theoretical.

It is a it is known that acts on contracts with ICE and the Department of Homeland Security.

Just as we stated concerns with our previous vendor Flock, having connections with border patrol and also the Department of Homeland Security.

We say proudly that we are a city that welcomes immigrants, right?

We've been saying that since Mayor Michael Hancock was here, right?

We proclaimed it.

It is known that Axon Cont I'm sorry, and we lost my place, that we stand we stand with our neighbors regardless of where they come from.

But those values are tested in moments like this, because we cannot, on one hand, declare ourselves a safe and welcoming place for immigrants, and on the other hand, consider partnerships with companies that actively use their technology to detain and deport immigrants.

That contradiction matters.

This is not just about a contract, it is about alignment.

It is about whether our actions as a city reflect our values that we say that we have.

So let's slow down, let's do this right, let's build actual policy guardrails first, and only then decide what tools, if any, belong here in Denver.

I thank everyone that has been a part of these processes, and again, I want to just state that I respect uh I have heard what you have said and and and that the fact that we will continue collaboration, I will expect that.

You will expect it from me as well.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

First, I want to thank the members of the task force and the almost years work of engagement and work that they have done.

I want to thank the council members that are currently on the task force and our engagement with community as well as with the administration.

Thank you to the administration for your due diligence and listening and ensuring that the outcomes from this contract included the voices of community.

Um I'll be voting yes on this contract tonight for two reasons.

Um, number one, when we set up a task force um to identify really what are the options, what are the steps we need to ensure uh that um we're looking at the safety of our community while protecting uh privacy and the task force provides us with those clear directives that clear information, I think is the opportunity for us as we're looking at a year-long contract that we actually um take their input, we apply it to the contract that's before us, and then we ensure that we execute um based on that will.

Um we've had lots of input from the task force.

We've had lots of discussions here within Denver City Council.

Um the safeguards are in place from the feedback we receive from the task force.

We will own the data from this contract.

It's not owned by anyone else.

There are protections to ensure that this cannot be shared beyond the city and county of Denver, under strong protections to make sure that if there's any changes when it comes to the technology increases, that we have steps to make sure we're informed.

It's not a perfect contract.

It's a hundred and fifty thousand dollar contract for one year.

I believe the task force and the members of Denver City Council do need to do an ordinance.

And I look forward to working and collaborating with folks on making sure there's an ordinance.

We are from day one making it clear that we are going to do an ordinance from that process.

We believe that we need to move forward to make sure that the city isn't pausing the steps we have for existing data centers while we're looking at what we need to do improve the health and protections of communities where these data centers are could be built if the work goes through.

The work of the task force is respected.

I respect that work, I respect the feedback that was given to city council and to the mayor's office.

I respect the contractual process that incorporated those steps, and for those reasons, I'll be a yes tonight.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilwoman Navy does thank you, Council President.

This is a really tough decision for me, and not one that I've taken lately.

I have spent the majority of my weekend, the majority of the last year talking to people from former mayors to neighbors to RNO presidents to experts in the field.

And this is one of those moments where we're balancing two very real responsibilities: public safety and civil liberties.

And I want to be clear, I've just I've been reading and talking to so many people on both sides of this issue.

Um it's disappointing that we've had the last year to craft legislation and still not been able to do so and don't know when it will be done.

I've heard concerns from community concerns about surveillance, about data collection, about how systems like this can evolve over time.

Those concerns are valid and deserve to be taken seriously, and I take them seriously.

At the same time, I've also heard from residents who want us to have every tool available to solve crimes.

I've heard from constituents who where the one camera in District 7 would be.

Um since COVID with a high Asian population in my district.

Talk to immigrants who also want to feel safe and want to have a sense of privacy as well.

And we do have this continued risk of potential problems, and we also have the continued risk of having more crimes that are not solved, and once crimes stop being solved, they will increase.

Um that don't have the ability to be searched like these, but that are out there all over the city uh surveilling community.

And we know that in Denver, this technology has played a role in solving some serious cases, everything from homicide, human trafficking, and sex assault, and that does matter.

So I asked myself what is actually in front of us today.

First, this proposal represents a significant scale back of where we've been over the last year, going from over a hundred cameras to fewer than half that number.

Second, this is one year, and I appreciate that because a one year or before that.

If we find out that ICE is accessing accessing these cameras, or we do start to see subpoenas that we haven't seen, um we can address those things between now and then.

So I am going to be voting yes on this contract.

It does not prevent us from creating an ordinance.

In fact, I am committed to working on that ordinance.

We have been existing with ALPRs for the last several years without an ordinance.

And while these contracts can set expectations, we do need to create laws, and I stand by that and am committed to working on that.

And we still need guardrails around how this data is used, how long it can be kept.

Although the contract does address these things, these shouldn't be things that we're negotiating per contract.

And I also want to address accountability because that's a major concern.

We received a letter from the district attorney that is important here.

It makes clear that any improper or illegal use of this data can and will result in criminal investigation and charges.

That commitment was important to me.

Officers are required to document case number and a legitimate purpose before doing these searches.

And any falsification or misuse can lead to serious consequences by Brady implications, loss of ability to testify, and even loss of post certification.

In other words, misuse of the system isn't just a policy violation, it can be prosecuted, and that matters.

I also want to address concerns about data and federal access.

The data system is encrypted and controlled by the city of Denver.

And while Oxen Axon does have a contract with homeless and security, Homeland Security is for body worn cameras and tasers.

We want ICE to have body worn cameras and tasers.

We don't want them to not have body worn cameras and have just guns.

The commitment is that this system will not expand without coming back to council.

And that is something that I will continue to communicate with the administration about.

And we will be revisiting in a year.

If we start to, like I said, if we start to see subpoenas or other concerns come up, then I'm happy to address those, but I'm not going to not use this technology because maybe that might happen.

Finally, I want to speak to something that weighs on me.

There are real cases like hate crimes where tools can help find the people responsible.

That matters for justice, that matters for big victims, and that matters for equity.

Ensuring that we're finding the right individual, this technology can also be used to prove someone's innocence.

It can also be used to catch government overreach.

It can also be used to make sure that we are not prosecuting the wrong person because they have been to drive that car, but actually identifying that exact car.

So I do have trepidation.

I'm not a, oh yes, this is the best thing.

I'm super happy about this at all.

But I do not believe that, and I do not believe the system is perfect, and I do not believe the work is done.

But I do believe that a scaled back, time-limited approach paired with clear accountability and commitment to stronger policy gives us a path forward, a path where we can support public safety while continuing to build the protections our residents deserve.

And I take that responsibility seriously, and I remain committed to the work that it's gonna take to get this to the point where it's right because it is not right today.

Thank you.

Council pro-Tim Remaro Campbell.

Can you hear me okay?

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um so I just wanted to say I appreciate my council member colleagues' um comments, and I think that that's the challenge of the conversation is that um as a council member Sawyer said, you know, multiple things can be true.

Um I do uh really think the surveillance task force and thinking about what this looks like moving forward, uh, the work that has been happening, and I know everything has been, you know, um, I believe it was said, you know, just very reactionary.

Um the conversation to be able to um get a better contract moving forward, something that is um uh workable, something that is short-term, something that is um will be leaning on accountability, and I think that there are some measures within this contract that really speak to that in this next year.

Um I also agree that we do need an ordinance committed to supporting that and um and working to um move that forward.

Um I've heard from constituents again who um deeply feel um who are who are for this and who are also against it.

Um, and I think that that's the complexity of what is happening, not only in my district but across the city.

Um but I also know that in this time um we need to be able to have multiple things you know be true at once.

And I think that this contract is something that we could definitely um have for accountability to be able to move forward to be able to work in this next year for an ordinance.

Um again address safety and also have components in place that we know we need um in the future.

So for that I'm gonna be a yes tonight.

Um but I do think that we need to have um the continued conversation.

I think that the recommendations from the task force um from the surveillance task force are going to be key in really helping to craft what an ordinance looks like for the city.

Um so I will end my comments there, but um, thank you everyone for the time and the effort that you've put into this and for the thinking and the thoughtfulness.

Um keep you know, our entire city moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So most like my colleagues, I've sat with this all weekend.

Um I'll just say on the record, I don't like the fact that this came to us.

I don't appreciate it.

I really don't.

Um I've never voted on a contract for 150,000.

I think it sets a bad precedent.

I think it makes us in the court of public opinion.

I think any time in the future, if I need something, am I gonna say, hey, Mayor Hank Mayor May Johnston, bring that to us?

I think I'm gonna be told no.

I really am.

I don't know any other time that this is something that has come to us, and so I just have to go on the record and say I'm so disappointed in this because a hundred and fifty thousand dollar contract, we've had budget amendments for 150,000 that we've had to work really, really, really hard on.

And um, so I don't like that.

Normally I go to a couple people in my community who um I talk about um, and I called one of them last night, and I thought I would know her vote, and she said he thought I don't know what to type, and I said, What do you mean you don't know what to tell me?

And she said, I read the article from the mayor's the three mayors, and I was going to lobby you for to vote no, and now I don't know what to do.

And she said, I bet you don't know what to do.

And I said, I do not know what to do.

So I just sat with it like I normally do, and today I got another email.

I've gotten a lot of emails, just to be clear.

I don't think one person who's sitting around this you has not received a lot of emails.

We have gotten a lot of email traction on this ordinance, a lot.

And today, someone who I had worked with since we're working with council member Espinosa um in 2015, and who when I ran, I went to her, she made a statement to me that she read my the Denver Post article where I was quoted about not trusting the current federal administration, which let me be very clear.

I do not trust the person who occupies the way White House, and I use that word occupy because it feels like it's being occupied.

So I'm just gonna say that there.

But she says, I do not believe that our city should be making decisions out of fear.

We need to do what is in the best interest of our residents and our kids, which is to utilize current technology to reduce crime.

So again, here I am with somebody who I've literally gone to for 10 years asking for advice.

So I know obviously I don't know if you all know how to vote count, but I do.

So I have a vote count sheet right here.

I know that I'm the deciding vote, which again does not feel great, just does not.

So I'm gonna vote the way I'm gonna vote when I get to the voting.

I'm not gonna say it right now because honestly to be honest with you, I need like one more minute to think about this because this is a really big deal.

Because yesterday, when I was talking to someone who was calling me in support of it, I said it's also my job to protect immigrants, it's also my job to protect the trans community that one of my family members is part of, and it's also my job to protect the people who get hit.

I have an unsolved case on 38th in Sheridan where we cannot find the person who hit bicycleists, and it's still unsolved.

And I keep thinking to myself, if I had that automatic license plate reader right there, would I probably have solved this?

Maybe.

So I just want you all to know that these jobs are not easy.

And I just want to thank every single one of my colleagues because everything you said was true.

I have never agreed with every single one of you more than I have tonight.

And this is seriously one of the hardest decisions.

I mean, I've made lots of hard decisions, and I can't remember making a harder one.

For let me repeat, $150,000.

Normally, contracts come to us.

There's a charter that says things come to us at half a million dollars or more.

And so I feel like this should have been in administration and we could have worked on an ordinance.

And to the colleagues who are working on the ordinance, I know I've been bugging you about it.

Thank you.

Sorry, I've been bugging you about it.

Um I'm happy to work on that with you.

I think we can hat craft something really great.

So I'm gonna need one more minute to figure out if I'm a yay or a nay as the votes come to you.

I've never done that in my entire time of being here since 2019.

So this is a rare event for me.

Madam Secretary.

Let me see.

Is there any no last speakers?

Madam Secretary, roll call.

Council members Lewis.

Nay.

Romero Gamble.

Aye.

Albitris.

Aye.

Flynn.

Aye.

Gilmore.

Aye.

Gonzalez Gutierrez?

Heinz?

Aye.

Cashman?

Aye.

Parity?

Nay.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Cortez?

Nay.

Watson.

Aye.

Madam President Sandoval.

Transmittee says nay.

Aye.

Madam Secretary, close the voting, announce the results.

Seven eyes.

Seven ay.

On Monday, April 27th, Council will hold a required public hearing.

Yes, ma'am.

We didn't consider one.

Oh, sorry about that.

Then let me go to the script.

All bills for introduction or order published.

Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote, and you will need to vote aye.

Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote.

Councilmember Cashman, will you please put the resolution for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?

I thank you, Madam President.

I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration.

Be placed upon final consideration and due pass in a block for the following items.

26 uh 320, 2632, 26.

Uh 26305, 26306, 26307, 26310, 2631, 26317, 2632, 26324, 26308, 26318, 26323, 26, 186, 26, 319.

Uh sorry.

There we go.

26293, 26294, uh 295, 296, 298, 299, 309, 25-934.

Uh 26292, and that's it.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

Madam Secretary, roll call.

Councilmember Lewis.

Aye.

Aye.

Albitris.

Aye.

Glenn.

Aye.

Gilmore.

Aye.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Aye.

Hines?

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Parity.

Aye.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Glotis.

Aye.

Watson.

Aye.

Madam President Sandoval.

Aye.

Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.

13 ayes.

13 ayes.

The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration to pass.

On Monday, April 27, 2026, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill Zero Two Three Zero, changing the zoning classification for four two eleven North Hooker Street in Berkeley.

Any protest against Council Bill 0230 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on April 20th, 2026.

There will be no data visions before this body.

This meetings adjourned.