Welcome back to this monthly meeting of the Governance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee of Denver City Council.

Thanks for joining us for the discussion.

The Governance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee starts now.

Good morning, everyone.

Oh, the green light is not on yet.

Oh, please.

I don't mean it.

I take it back.

Good morning.

Good morning, everyone.

The green light is on now.

I'm Amanda Sawyer.

Thank you for joining us.

This is the first government and intergovernmental relations committee.

Those of you who uh follow Denver City Council know that we changed up some of our committees in July.

And so this is a committee that meets once a month to talk about state legislative priorities, federal legislative priorities, also the auditor's office and a couple of other uh the clerk's office and a couple of other um uh agencies um are a part of this committee.

So this is our first one.

I'm Amanda Sawyer.

I have the honor of representing District Five and also chairing this committee.

Um today we have a conversation with our state lobbyists um as well as council members to talk about uh what happened at special session, what is coming up um at the state um in the next session uh that starts in January, although the work starts before then.

Um and just to let everyone know to set expectations um after we have our conversation today, what we would like to do is send out a uh survey to um all city council members just to get your um feedback on any of your priorities, and then we will come back together and meet in November for a more in-depth uh conversation with council members um and our lobbyists about what our put our priorities are and how they might dovetail um with the work that's being done at the state.

So uh thank you all for joining us for this.

Before we get started, we're gonna do a round of introductions, and I'm gonna start to my left.

Hi, everyone.

Uh Sadana Gonzalez Piquetes, one of the council members at large.

Jamie Torres, West Denver District 3.

Uh Daryl Watson, Fine District 9.

Uh, Paul Cashman, uh South Denver District 6.

Sarah Perity, your other council member at large.

Chantel Lewis, District 8.

Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver District 2.

Fantastic.

Um, well, since our lobbying team just arrived, do you guys need a minute?

Or are you ready to go?

If you are, come on up to the table and then please introduce yourselves and then we'll get started.

Tell us what happened at special session and what you are anticipating is coming in January.

And before, because JBC starts meeting soon.

Right.

And the budget is uh top of everyone's mind.

Unfortunately.

All right.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair, committee committee members.

I'm Adam Paul of the Mayor's Office.

And um, we've had a little bit of a change this year in our legislative committee makeup.

We have uh uh the chair, counselor uh Sawyer is now joined us, as well as uh Councilor Gonzalez Gutierrez on the council side.

And then Tim Hoffman and myself will be representing the mayor's office, and Becky Studemeyer will be helping support us, and of course we have uh Dominic Moreno who will kind of quarterback a lot of this as he's all things state and a great resource to have.

And as the as the chair mentioned, we had set um kind of joint priorities last year, and I think it worked really well, and just on a high level, they were affordable housing and homelessness, business and labor support, climate response, safe transportation options, support for youth and families, health access, public and community safety.

And so we will begin begin the same process where we'll go out to the agencies and meet with the mayor and get a better understanding of things that they're seeing or opportunities where Denver can engage on on legislation.

Come back once you all have done your side in November, and we'll work on a joint statement and look at how we can move forward to the better effect.

I know there's some things that council would like to see some legislation.

There's some things that we've been uh briefed on from some of the agencies as well.

So we'll start to look at at doing that.

And then, of course, we'll have a reception um sometime in in December where we'll meet with all of our Denver delegation and have the opportunity to share our joint pronounce with them.

So that's a little bit on our side.

I will have the lobby team if you want to just introduce yourselves.

Hi, everyone, I'm Heather Retzko, a member of the Policy Matters team.

It's nice to see you all today.

Katie Hancock, also a member of Policy Matters.

Jimena Luna, also a member of Policy Matters.

Tanya Modest, Kelly Bowery.

Policy matters.

All right.

We'll go ahead and get going and start with the special session.

All right.

So just an overview of what happened during special session.

The General Assembly considered 21 House bills, three House resolutions, nine Senate bills, and one Senate resolution.

Most did not advance, with only 11 bills surviving until the end.

Measures adopted only partially address the state's uh 2025-26 revenue losses, and they do little to resolve the much larger challenges that we anticipate in 2026, 2027, and beyond.

Internally, the city and county of Denver took a position on three bills.

Um Senator Rodriguez's increased transparency for algorithmic systems.

Um Representative Lindstedt's consumer protections for artificial intelligence interaction, and then the healthy school meals for all that we'll talk about a little bit.

Um for the consumer protections for artificial intelligence interaction, the House Bill, it was characterized as the industry bill, uh drawing support from small and large businesses, school districts, local governments, and other public entities, um, and it died uh on the calendar.

Um increased transparency for algorithmic systems was seen as the consumer solution, uh, drawing support from stakeholders like the labor union and the ACLU after negotiations fell apart due to disagreements over liability protections for developers and deployers.

Uh Senator Rodriguez ran a strike below amendment that just extended the implementation of SB 24205 until June 30th, 2026.

What is the strike below amendment?

That's really fine, yeah.

Yeah, that's just when um they basically run an amendment that scripts everything in the bill and then just added in the provision that uh pushed out the implementation date.

So they kicked the can down the road.

That's exactly a conversation about that in a minute.

Exactly.

Um, and then healthy school meals for all.

Um, this bill just updates proposition MM to allow revenue raised under the measure for healthy school meals for all program to also allow SNAP to be eligible for those funds.

If I can just jump in there, we were really pleased too that our Department of Human Services testified in favor of the bill and did a really good job.

And um we got a lot of good feedback from the legislators about our participation in that.

Sorry, Anna.

And I was just gonna say as a refresher, the AI bill has been polarizing at the end of session last session, you know, up until midnight before we almost finished, there was a push pushes to do different things.

Again, this one was, and I think the committee felt that we were in enough contact that if we needed to jump into a support or opposed position on either, we could, but it was better just to monitor to see because it's so politically charged, and there's so many different moving pieces, and so again, we'll see this later on, but it will be a uh uh a top top, I think, priority bill for for many this next session.

So moving on to the budget, as we mentioned, it's uh certainly a hot topic right now, and a lot of the reason why we had a special session um in the first place.

Um the governor's office of state planning and budgeting um issued in its revenue forecast that they anticipated a 1.2 billion dollar shortfall um in the current fiscal year.

So that is different than um past times that we've talked about the budget because that meant that they had to go back and make cuts to a budget that they had already passed, which is incredibly challenging.

Um absorbing some of the the but the budget cut with um surplus dollars, there was a 783 million dollar hole.

And so the strategy from the governor's office was to tackle that um with the use of three different um revenue sources.

One, the third using some of the surplus, two percent of the surpluses is what they ended up um agreeing to.

And then um some of the bills that Katie talked about, and Tanya will walk us through um them in a second.

They passed a handful of revenue generating bills that really targeted um different tax um breaks, if you will, um, especially around business.

So we used a third reserve, a third um with the revenue generating bills, and then the governor's office had to come in and present a plan with a third um of the remaining third with a plan for cuts.

Um the interesting thing, and and there was quite a bit of debate about that as well during the special session is the use of the um reserve triggers the governor's office to have to submit a plan on how to balance the budget.

This again is really different and unique um in terms of how we normally balance a budget where we would go through the joint budget committee.

We our team and Adam and you all have a chance to opine on the different decisions, decisions that they're making.

That's not the case when we use the reserve.

The governor's office has sort of unchartered authority to submit a plan, and it is what it is.

Um provider rate increase that we were able to fight so hard for and get implemented last year.

Um Hickpuff County administration received the same increase.

That's just how it kind of works for the rates in the county administration.

And so we're estimating about 1.3 million dollars seat wide um impact on counties.

The directors of human services are right now working to put that new sort of allocation through the formula, and so we're not exactly quite sure yet what the number for Denver will be, but as soon as we have that, we'll certainly let you all know.

Um can I just jump in there and just let council members know in your fun reading thousand-page budget book that you got yesterday?

Um there are comments about some of the changes that the state and their impact to the city in the first portion of where it talks about the general fund right after kind of the schedule 100 um form.

So I don't know the exact page number today.

Sorry, guys.

Uh, it's somewhere around page 88 that it starts talking about things like the like the marijuana revenue reduction from 10% to I think it's 3%, um, which will have a fiscal impact on the city of Denver.

There are a few things like that that are flagged in the beginning of the budget book by our Department of Finance, and so worth taking a look at those to see kind of what those impacts are to us.

Thanks.

Great, thank you.

Um, and so just looking forward the on the 22nd of this month, we're gonna receive a new um the September revenue forecast from the governor's office and legislative council.

That is going to be a key um indicator as to what we're looking at facing the next budget cycle.

Um, what we're hearing so far from prior revenue forecasts and also just from the continued impacts of HR1 implementation, they're expecting a deficit again, um, and up to potentially 1.2 billion dollars again.

Um I think the challenging thing that remains is that it really is a structural deficit with some of the cuts that the governor's office put out, especially in um HICPUF.

The the idea there was to kind of slow caseload growth and slow some of the pressures, especially around they eliminated some of the prior authorization legislation that they had um passed in years past.

So I think they're really looking at it um in a structural way, and so we anticipate you know just another challenging year ahead, unfortunately.

Yeah, and just to echo what Heather said, and one of the big issues that did really come up when the governor and Mark Ferrino, the head of OSBB, presented, was that many of the legislators said they were very concerned that a lot of unfunded mandates were now going to be going back to the cities and counties for them to pay for.

We did have legislators ask some of those questions, and he also received quite a bit of pushback regarding the provider rate.

Um there's one option, which I don't think they'll pursue because as Heather just mentioned, the budget situation continues to be terrible.

The reason they had to meet in the special session is because they had to do these base building cuts so that they didn't have to cut twice as much the next session that they're coming in.

Um but there is an option that they can through supplementals, the joint budget committee can go back and revisit some of those decisions that the governor made, but that can't happen until January.

So a lot of those cuts will already have been impacted, already been put into place, and then they have to come up with where they're gonna get the revenue to replace those cuts that they're taking back from the governor's office.

So it's probably highly unlikely, but at least it was interesting to see which areas they targeted.

Um Councilwoman Parity, I did follow up with Hickpuff, and there's a work group on the work requirement issue that you asked us.

So I've got some contact information, which I'll get to you.

Um they're still very much in disarray.

Many of the cuts that were made on some of these revenue bills, they're having to create and hire more staff to comply with the HR 1, um the federal bill that passed into place new requirements.

And so we're kind of wondering really how are these cuts going to take place if they're still going to have to augment FTE, if they're gonna have to create new programs.

So a lot of that, um, as Heather and Katie and Jimena and I have been looking at, are sort of gonna come out and play into the future.

We wanted to highlight these revenue generating bills just because without this passage, they would have had to cut more.

Um, and so these are the few that passed during the special session.

The qualified business income deduction add back, there was a federal decoupling.

Um, our state laws are completely uh for taxes, are in in sync with the federal laws, and so they took back some of the federal corporate write-offs so that they could generate some additional funding and ran a statute to change that for the state of Colorado.

Um the corporate income tax foreign jurisdictions, that was an easy low-hanging fruit one that they wanted to really look at.

Um insurance premium tax rate for home offices.

There was a uh provision that was run that if you had a home office, if you're an insurance company in Colorado, you could get a write-off.

Many of the insurance companies had bigger offices in other states, but only had two percent of their home office here to qualify for that.

So they did eliminate that to generate about 44 million.

Um, the sale of tax credits, this was a pretty significant one and garnered quite a bit of debate.

Um because of the way Tabor works when you are in an ability or in a situation where we can um take advantage of some of those tax credits, but once we reach that tabor cap again, those will have to go away.

So it's not a permanent tax fix, it's not a permanent fix to the budget.

Just depends on where we are with under or over that taper cap.

But they did pass um the sale of tax credits and then eliminating state sales tax vendor fee.

There was a um final um uh issue that was resolved between the restaurants um on the vendor fee and some of the small businesses, so it generated significantly lower than the initially hoped for the vendor fee, but at least it generated some, and and people ended up coming around to come up with that negotiation.

So, as Heather mentioned, this was a pretty significant one third, about 245 million was generated of ongoing revenue that they needed to make cuts to um to help pay for the budget gap that we were experiencing.

And I would just add to I think um the governor's office is certainly continuing to be strategic and think through new ideas um to just be coupled with these revenue generating bills.

They're certainly um anticipating significant budget pressures, like I mentioned um on the on the state budget next year.

One of those um is certainly SNAP.

The change in the um in the state share um uh from HR1 is is significant.

Um, as Katie mentioned in Senate Bill 3, they allowed just the remaining funds in the healthy school meals program to be um allocated towards SNAP.

They don't think that's gonna be enough.

It likely won't be enough, and so that's gonna put significant pressure on the state budget and likely the county budget as well and county administration.

So that's certainly something that's on our radar, and we'll continue to monitor.

And that's a great follow-up.

That bill still has to go to the ballot um for a vote of the people.

So that's the other piece that if that does not pass a vote of the people, they're back to a lot more additional revenue that's needed should that not pass for healthy meals and SNAP.

Questions on those key bills, and we're we'll move on to other legislation.

Um why don't we hold our questions till the end?

But I know a couple of council members in the queue already.

Great.

That sounds great.

Um and then artificial intelligence, I think as Adam mentioned, and as um our our councilwoman Sawyer mentioned, this is definitely a kick the can down the road.

Um they could not come to agreement on fundamental policy issue changes, especially around the issue of liability, is how they're stated.

And so um, I do think there's gonna be probably quite a bit of stakeholdering and more meetings, but certainly something that we'll see again during the next legislative session.

Robert Rodriguez, our majority leader, and also one of our Denver members has really been um a lead on uh trying to figure this out.

He was the original sponsor of Senate Bill 205.

Um, and then uh William Lindstedt and a number of House members have really um gotten up to speed on this issue as well and have been working it more collaboratively with the business community.

Robert's been uh working more with labor, but really trying to find solutions across the board.

And so um I think we'll just be respectful and participate because it's so important to us, and we will keep you all posted on those.

Before you move on from that, can I just um ask Adam to maybe weigh in from the mayor's office perspective and from the agency perspective on what our concern is with that and with implementation?

Yeah, thank you for that.

And I think mainly um on the city side, the implementation pieces making sure, and I think there was a carve out for municipalities for local government.

But I think that'll have to go back in because that was in the strike, strike low.

So that'll be something to make sure that we're able to utilize that for different things.

And I think there was uh an email that went out that had uh from tech services, would have come from Victoria, maybe that had some great information on how the city already uses that, and we can provide that as well.

So that's one piece as far as the city goes.

And then also striking the balance between privacy protection and innovation, making sure that businesses that are here or want to relocate to the city of Denver, you know, this isn't burdensome for them or for smaller businesses as far as implementation and liability.

So there's a big liability component also as to if uh if it's passed in a certain way, what does that do to the people that are providing building or utilizing?

So a lot of different facets, and it's just super political, as we've seen.

And I think trying to find that right balance of protections and innovation is gonna be the key to to bring people together and move it forward.

Thanks.

Um for the uh foster youth benefits bill.

Um last session, uh Colorado enacted uh House Bill 1271, uh, which required counties to screen foster youth for social security survivor benefits, apply for those benefits when eligible, uh, manage and conserve funds and trust accounts, and uh prohibit the use of those funds to offset foster care costs.

So we've heard that in 2026 legislators may pursue a follow-up bill applying those same requirements to uh social security dependent uh benefits.

Um so that was uh benefit type that was not addressed in House Bill 1271 and would uh add additional projected fiscal and administrative impacts, especially for counties.

Um and so we are continuing to monitor and we'll update y'all when we hear anything more.

Um and then for the gun exchange background check requirements um right now when you go to turn in uh uh a gun uh you are subjected to a background check, and so we are trying to meet with uh majority leader Duran to see what we can do to um get that requirement uh taken out just because it we see it as a barrier.

Um so we will update y'all on that as well.

Thank you.

And I will just jump in and say um I have been begging for this, uh, so has our chief of police for several years in 2022.

We worked with the Broncos, the City of Aurora um and the city of Denver, and a nonprofit organization called Raw Tools that turns um old, they're blacksmiths and they turn old weapons um that have been cut up into um jewelry and uh and gardening tools.

And we took almost a thousand weapons off the street that year um that were turned in voluntarily by people.

Um, but we had to work with a nonprofit organization to run it because of this background check law because you cannot go to the police department if you've inherited your grandfather's World War II service revolver that you do not want, um you can't go to the police station and turn it in.

They will have to do a background check on themselves.

And so that's really dumb and should be changed because we want to incentivize people to do that because what we see in our crime statistics in the city of Denver is that you know, obviously, in a gun buyback program, we're not expecting people who are using their weapons for illegal purposes to turn in their guns.

Um, but we see a lot of people who um are the victims of crime, their house gets broken into, their car gets broken into, and they're leaving a gun in their car um unsecured in violation of the state law, um, and those get stolen and used in other crimes.

So we want to provide a way for people to turn those in.

So that's why this is so important to me.

Um, and it's you know, it's a good law to have this background check in place, but there's got to be some sort of um carve out for turning it into your level police station so that people can do that.

Thanks.

Um, and then just as Heather mentioned, uh, we are waiting for the September revenue forecast that will be out on the 22nd.

Um, we this should provide us with an idea of kind of the fiscal note implications for uh next session um to see you know what level of fiscal note a bill can come with and it be unlikely or likely to pass.

Um, and then also uh will give us um outlook on HR1 costs, specifically around Medicaid and SNAP uh for years to come.

All right, thank you.

Um we've got a number of council members in the queue.

We'll start with council member Flynn.

Hi, Dream Chair.

Um maybe I missed this uh or flew by me, but there seems to be about almost 300 million dollars still remaining that I'm not understanding how they filled 783 million dollar budget hole after uh absorbing part of the 1.2 billion.

And it was offset with cuts and adjustments of 252 million.

And then um revenue bills 245 million.

And when I subtract that from 783, I come up with 285 million dollars still as a gap.

So very good.

How did they is this a balanced budget or not?

They cut the reserve.

So that's that's the last piece.

They cut that reserve.

You were very good on your numbers too, because that number.

We are very impressed.

Yes.

Our former joint budget committee member Dominic Moreno is very impressed, councilman.

Yeah, that's exactly what they did.

And so that's what ended up prompting that they they cut the reserve.

So when they cut that reserve, as Heather mentioned, then they still had to come back after this special session and come up with the long-term ongoing cuts to make up.

That's what you were talking about in the beginning of it.

Exactly.

Thank you.

So that's a 13%.

And then the other question I had was about the MM and uh SNAP.

And then on slide five uh four, you're talking about how they uh adjusted the the uh ballot measure to allow uh the the revenue raise through there to be used also for SNAP, but then on the next slide.

Uh it may cover only half.

So can you put dollar amounts on that?

Because half of MM doesn't mean anything to me.

So the way that they're structuring the ballot measure is everything will have to go to the healthy school meals for all program first, um, including setting up a reserve for that program, and then whatever is kind of in excess of that is expected to go to SNAP.

So I think it's estimated to be around 70 million dollars that will go to SNAP after the healthy school meals for all program is is all sorted.

Um but uh 70 million dollars in SNAP is just not going to be able to slide five that make uh 150 to 200 million dollar gap in SNAP.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Great.

Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair.

Um I am not as uh whiz at math as my good friend is so explain to me how TABE plays into the budget deficit and all that stuff.

We have a lot of experts on Tabor here.

She did her thesis on Tabor and how it interacts with the budget.

So I think the key piece right now is when there's a Tabor surplus, there's a cap of how much you can if you go above the cap or below the cap.

If you're below the cap, you have room between what what the costs of things are and how much that TABER cap is.

And because we've had such good years with you know the revenue that came in from the feds, the surplus, the coronavirus relief, there was quite a bit of a lot of space.

What happened now is that we've creeped up to very, very close to that cap now of Tabor.

And so what that means is the earned income tax credit, um, the family tax credits that cost significant dollars that there was space for going up to that Tabor cap now are potentially going to push like the homestead exemption, which helps the senior citizens up above the cap, which means then they'll have to cut general fund to pay for that obligation.

And so what they're looking at and what they're playing around with, that's why some of these tax credit bills is it really a fix?

We don't know because it depends on the next revenue forecast that we're gonna see on the 20th, the 22nd of September, to see where are we with the Tabor cap, whether we're above or below.

Simplify even more.

If we get rid of Tabor tomorrow, what does that do for our budget deficit?

Anything well.

At least just be honest.

Yeah, well, personally, you know, I think it's it's very challenging because that they don't have the people have to the elected officials have to go to a vote of the people to increase any revenue because of TABER.

So without TABER, they would be allowed the tools as elected many elected officials are in other states.

We're the only state of the nation with Tabor that would be allowed to do that.

I think you know, I do think you know, some of the fundamental debate on on the other side of the issue is are we creating programs, however, that are ongoing programs that we created with one-time funds, and unfortunately, we did do that.

The legislature made those decisions, the governor made some of those decisions, and there's legitimate concern about that because some of those are ongoing commitments that we now no longer have general fund for.

So they're gonna really have to go back and look at programs to get rid of.

And they have not since I think what the last probably eight or nine years that we've been there, it's been a very positive budget situation for the state of Colorado.

We have not had to make those challenging cuts.

We can remember, however, a time we were here in 2008.

You guys were here, 2002, when it was terrible budget times, and we had to make monumental cuts.

So that's what we're entering back into.

Very good questions.

Yeah, I've I've I'll go deeper at another time offline.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks.

Um, before we Councilmember Perity, you're up next, but can I just ask a follow-up question to that one before you go?

Are you cool with that?

Fairity.

Oh, yeah, I'm so sorry.

Okay, you're asking these guys.

No, and I actually I actually message you.

I'm I can get out of few.

Oh, okay, great.

So um so question for you guys uh about the potential programs that are gonna be cut and what our advocacy might look like as a city with regards to those programs.

So there have been a lot of programs that have been created that are unfunded mandates and all the things that are either gonna get passed down to us or they're gonna have to go.

And as the state is having those conversations, how will we be able to engage in that to lend our voice to what we might want to see cost-saving perspectives from the city?

I think as Heather already mentioned, the governor's office has actually come to us to say are there unfunded mandates that are owners onerous that are cumbersome.

Do you all have ideas about I think they really are trying to look at how they they have the next the next iteration, of course, is we have the revenue forecast in September, and then on November 1st, the governor submits his budget request again for this next year.

They are asking us for concepts and ideas and and looking at things that potentially can help them with budget savings, but also more scalpel approach that they're not really crucifying us for the areas that we need, such as SNAP, such as some of the HICPUF, like um, because Ferrandino was very appreciative of some of our efforts on some of the revenue generating bills, he was very sensitive to not he cut the increase to the provider rates, but he did not make cuts to the provider rates.

But because that generates so much general fund, I've got to believe they're gonna come in with cuts during the November 1 budget request.

They're trying to make them modest because that's one of the areas that we've said our mental health centers were closed, our developmental disability centers were closed.

You know, a lot of the work we've done around our homeless populations, a lot of the outreach that all of those funds are tied up with some of that county admin that's so critical for our general operations.

So I think both Adam and Dominic have also had really good conversations.

I know with the governor's office, they've reached out to our team as well.

They they're gonna definitely care about what the council, you know, as you move forward.

They are very aware of the terrible budget cuts we've had to deal with, as you all have with both the mayor's office and the council members for city and county of Denver.

So I think we have a great seat at the table.

We have a chance to interact.

Um they're gonna be doing you know, quite a bit of outreach.

I think there's gonna be more interim meetings as we get ready and people start putting their bills in, which will start happening in September.

Well, really, this month and October are the big months to start getting those bills filed.

So we're happy to just keep those communication channels open.

Adam, can't we?

And this is just a little bit different.

Uh this is going back to Councillor Cashman's um question.

So with Tabor, right, and the limitations that we have on on raising revenue.

There's also a potential uh two initiatives that are going through the process right now that would limit fees, which fees are ways that you can still find opportunities to generate, and these would then if one of them states if if uh a fee raises over 100 million dollars in five years has to go to a vote of the people.

So, you know, these things are also working through where they've taken the Tabor piece on the vote.

Now that fee piece is gonna be potentially under attack, and I think that's important to have that conversation because fees are very important and they go directly to the things that they are funding.

So to just stop funding silly things like education and mental health, and it would help with the budget problem.

And to Adam's point, I think his is a very profound one.

So, for example, one fee that is very well known as something known as the hospital provider fee, that created an enterprise which funds about three billion dollars worth of funding to Medicaid patients, to health care, to how we operate, to rural hospitals, um, to Denver Health.

Um, so he is certainly correct.

These are things that we've really got to keep an eye on because those enterprises have been key budget um issues that have worked for the state of Colorado and that have worked with the law of Tabor.

And so the more that those um types of things are ratcheted down within these statewide ballot initiatives, it makes it harder and harder for us to come up with revenue.

Thank you.

Great.

Councilmember Parity, you said you're out, you tagging out?

Okay, Councilmember Torres.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, what will be on the November ballot?

I've heard a couple different references to things that will be there.

L L M M.

Anything else?

Whether it's from regular session or from special, I think there was one last year that we so for sure the Healthy Meals one was one I thought was another one maybe around water issues.

How about this?

Can you guys pull together a list of what items are going to be on the ballot in November from the state and with a description of them for us and email that out to us?

Yeah.

All of them.

Any referred measures too.

And just looking at the the Secretary of State's website, there's you know, approved for circulation.

There's seven or eight of them right now looking for title.

There's 15.

Yeah, but those ones are but those ones are not gonna be on the ballot in November.

I'm my specific ask is what is gonna be on the ballot in November.

Yeah, absolutely.

We can do that.

Sorry, Councilwoman Torres.

No, thank you.

Um the programs created with one-time funds.

What which ones are those?

Are they easy to rattle off or no?

They're not easy.

Um great great question.

So some of those, like for example, um some of them were around mental health, the interim committee on mental health.

Um, some of them were around MAT funding, substance abuse issues.

Um, some of them were around different programs within Department of Corrections.

So there was a whole there was a number of them.

Some of them had some funding that went into like the preschool program, but it was more one-time funding than it was ongoing funding for universal preschool.

Um it ended up taking it more general fund than the actual, it was initially passed because of the ballot initiative that passed, but then it required more funding, so they use some of those surplus funds.

So there's a myriad of different ones.

Um and that's I think that's the piece.

Many of those legislators were bill sponsors, so it's hard to get rid of something that's your baby.

Um, but because there's not, you know, initially when those recreated, it was like, let's see if these work, and then we'll go back and we'll pluck the ones off that don't work.

Well, nothing was really plucked off.

So now they're gonna have to make those challenging decisions.

And there were a lot of different grant programs created as well within all of the departments, so education grants, higher education grants, um, rural health grants, business, Oedit, Oedit, certainly.

Um, and so there we saw some of that in the governor's budget cut that they eliminated some of those grant programs.

We have a um document that we can send um perfect out to you that just outlines some of the the cuts.

Okay.

So you can see examples.

Yeah.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

And 425, it's only LL and MM right now.

Okay.

That's all that's been certified for the state, right?

Okay, perfect.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Mr.

Chairman.

Only those two referred and that's it.

That's all that uh citizen issues.

They said it it may there may be changes made, but as of right now, it's just those two.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Good question.

Councilman Torres anything else?

No, you good?

Okay.

Uh council member pro tem Romero Campbell.

Uh, thank you.

Uh I have a question and around proposition 123.

Was that touched at all, or were they taking funds?

And what is that impact for Denver, affordable housing, and us?

Great question.

Um, big concerns around that.

They took, was it 101 million?

105.

105 out of the 121 they could take.

Um, so in a time of fiscal crisis, when 123 passed the ballot, there was a provision in there that said you could swipe up to 125 million if it was a fiscal crisis and emergency.

So in the governor's plan, he took 101 million.

A lot of people now they they did not touch the DOLA side as much as they touched the OED side of things, but everyone in the affordable housing community is very, very concerned about what this does for rental assistance, what's what this does for a lot of the work that's been done around affordable housing.

Very astute question.

Um, and they the governor's office was pressed on that as well.

The governor himself when he came before the joint budget committee, and that what does this do to a lot of the work that they've already done?

Um, and they said we could have taken another, you know, 15 million, but we didn't do that.

Um but I think that that is definitely gonna be one that the legislature most likely may look at either through statutory changes or different provisions because they're concerned about how that impacts the work that's been done around affordable housing.

Good question.

And the DOLA side um provides for uh support for local governments, down payment assistance, mobile home programs, new construction acquisition, single family, owner occupied rehab.

So that's 40 percent of that, but mostly that'll be untouched, and it sounds like based upon what's been released.

Um the the money is gonna come from O Edit, but we'll mostly be impacts to land banking and equity programs.

So we'll still have for local governments who have that side and that ability, but that's where they feel most of the money is gonna be pulled from on the Oedit side.

Okay.

Well, people watching at home, what is Oedit?

Office of Economic Development and International Trade.

Good question, Councilman.

Thank you.

Um sorry about the acronyms.

Uh would that also mean so in the cycle?

Um, I heard that this next cycle is focused on rural communities, mountain communities, it not the metro area.

Do you know if that will if there will be additional cycles that will also include the metro area?

I believe so, but we'll get we'll get that information.

Um and I have another question uh just related to Tabor.

Um I know the conversation was moving forward, but is there any talk about then having effort to repeal Tabor?

Is anybody gonna take that one on?

So there was a pretty big, as you know, pretty big initiative last session, and that never got a hearing on the House um floor.

What we're hearing uh from leaders at the Bell, like Chris Kent, former representative Chris Kennedy, is that they may be looking at um higher income tax level, not complete elimination of TABER, but looking at raising revenues through um different tax measures.

Graduated income tax.

Graduated, thank you.

I'm not higher income tax, graduated income tax.

Thank you.

Well that is higher income tax for some.

It is higher, actually, absolutely.

So um, but we have not heard yet of any sort of outright um direct appeal to just eliminate TABE.

You know, we have been hearing that over time, many different groups are looking at is this something that we do, you know, keep going back after year after year to educate people about what's happening in terms of uh funding at the state level.

But I I have not heard have you guys heard of any?

So we'll keep you posted on that though if we do.

Great.

Um go ahead.

You're okay.

One last one.

You're all good.

One last one.

Well, it's just more of a comment.

A thesis on Tabor.

Kudos to you.

That's great.

We are.

Yeah, that's insane.

Wonderful.

Glad you're sitting at the table.

Um, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great, thank you.

Councilmember Watson.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, quick question on social equity for uh cannabis.

If if I'm correct, uh I believe that that um uh not sure what the um the funding mechanism was.

I believe there was a deadline or our end date of 2026.

Were there any changes as far as when when they're seeking um funds um um on the uh within this budget process?

Was social equity impacted uh with any of the marijuana tax impacts or anything that you all know on that we balanced it looks like with 500,000 from the marijuana tax cash fund.

I'm not sure exactly where that falls into, but we can love to know if that ties down to social equity and uh for folks or not uh as familiar to social equity uh piece was provided for uh cannabis businesses for folks who are impacted by the war on drugs.

So if you are arrested, family members were arrested during that process and program your received opportunity to um have funding to uh open the cannabis stores.

Very curious um if that exists.

I know there have been bills to try to uh make some uh amendments to what was available for social equity, uh, but I haven't heard anything on the funding.

Yeah, we're we're happy to follow up and just make sure that some of the programs that they eliminated had to do with like cyber, they there was like a chunk of funds in different programs that they looked at, but let us get dig more into that to make sure, councilman, to get you the correct information.

And the interesting thing with the governor's balancing plan is that it was just kind of bullets, it was like a dollar amount and bullets, and so these are really good questions that help us really dig in and uncover sort of the facts.

So we're happy to reach out to the governor's office and get more information for you.

Okay.

You good?

Thank you.

Awesome.

Um, I have a phone a friend from Councilwoman Alvarez who can't couldn't be here today, uh, one and wanting to know about impacts to CCAP funding.

Um so we were really successful, knock on wood, because I'm like hoping they don't whip it out.

Uh we did we're able to get funding into the budget.

That was not an area that they did cut, okay, um, which is good during the special session.

I think we've got to see what the forecast plays out and what happens during the November 1 budget request to see if more of those impacts are cut.

But um, there definitely is discussion around CCAP and the universal preschool program and how those work together and whether there's gonna be enough funding for both of those programs.

So it's certainly something we need to keep front and center.

Um, I know this is a very important priority for us.

It certainly is for our Denver Department of Human Services is something that we actively lobby on each year.

So we'll keep we're we're happy to keep her posted on that.

That's great.

Thank you.

So a question for you all just to wrap up around how we can partner to move forward.

There are some really big things that are coming, particularly with budget impacts, which will impact the cities and counties functions.

And all of that will sort of happen this fall.

So I think we've done a really good job of having very frequent updates and working with you all to make sure you're in the loop.

I think you're highlighting and telling us to look at some of the Denver fiscal cuts to make sure we're reviewing that.

What I would recommend starting in October, the joint budget committee is going to start getting hearings and briefings from different departments on areas that they're thinking of cutting and presentation of what they're looking at.

That certainly should be an opportunity for us to share with our council legislative liaison leads and Dominic and Adam and our team from the mayor's office to make sure that you guys have what we're hearing.

And the great thing about those hearings and briefings is it allows us some opportunity to input and get intel before the session starts that we're better prepared to say what those priorities are going to be.

And then I think in the meantime, you know, as you're working with our agencies and as you all have your priorities, and our council members are communicating with you all, letting us know hey, these are things that we're very concerned about, gonna have massive impacts on us that we want you to highlight or target or pay attention to.

Awesome.

Okay.

Anything to add, guys?

I think that was great.

No, I think we're off to a great start.

We had a dress rehearsal with special session, and uh kind of we learned a lot last session on how we can better work together and be nimble and fast in responding.

And I think the the more in-depth info we get from agencies based on HR1 and these things that we can get going sooner on and provide to you will help our advocacy in the long run.

And so I think that we're off to a good start, but also as with last year, any improvements that you all see that that we could be doing or things that you're not getting that would be important to you, please reach out.

Okay, thank you.

Um, thank you very much.

We are gonna for the second part, um, but just have a quick conversation with council members to go through our budget priorities that we set as a council and kind of what how that relates to state legislation and how um if there are any it things of specific interest.

Um, if you guys want to stay for that, we'd love to have you.

Um if you have things you need to get to, we totally get it, and you'll hear about it either way.

So really appreciate you all being here.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much.

Stay right over here.

Uh perfect.

That's great.

Thanks so much for coming and giving us that super important update.

Thank you.

Our amazing legislative aides are gonna come on up to the table.

Um Matt and Zara are in charge of um helping us out with ensuring that we've got all the things um that you all need so that we can um make sure that council is on the same page to be advocating um at the state.

And so I and Anne, thank you for putting together all of the um all of the stuff as well.

So our backup team are these three guys right here.

I appreciate you all very much.

Um so why don't you go ahead and take it away?

Sure.

So Ann Wallace, legislative policy analyst.

We just have a short um slide deck here to kind of kick off the discussion of 2026 legislative priorities.

So this conversation happened last year, I think during an operations meeting.

Um so what we have here is just reviewing our existing eight budget goals that we have as a kind of starting off point, and then discussing maybe additional legislative priorities that don't fall under those budget goals, and then specific legislative policies or legislation that you are all interested and would like to kind of pursue during the session.

Then we'll also talk quickly kind of about next steps following this meeting.

So we have budget goals here, part one.

And I don't know if I need to read through all of them.

Um, but we have budget goals.

Um, they changed a little bit from last year, so they're slightly different from last year.

As you know, we had the um the retreat in in March to sort these out.

So the budget goals, and I also have here kind of the aligned state committees of reference for these goals.

So, for example, increased community safety.

You might have bills going through the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, House and Senate Health and Human Services Committee that are kind of related to that budget goal.

Um, so that just kind of shows you the budget goals and then the aligned committees of reference here and budget goals are two.

So here budget goals five, six, and seven, and then committees of reference, and then this cut slide just prompts you to discuss additional legislative priorities that kind of fall beyond the budget goals.

Um, and I'm just here to take notes.

All right, Councilman Gonzalez Gutierrez, do you have anything you want to add?

Yeah, um, so I just sent out to all the council members just as a refresher, a reminder.

Um, the 2025 legislative goals, Adam had a copy, a hard copy of it, but it basically was the joint goals that we had with the mayor's office last year for the 2025 session.

And um also as just a reminder from last for that from last year, what we had done was what we took our budget goals and utilized those in uplifting what priorities we would have at the state level, because I think we did find alignment because there is alignment as we saw and in the presentation of how those align with the state, they just might look a little bit different, or the asks might be a little bit different than they are for us at the local level, right?

Because when we're setting up our budget goals, we're talking about our specific budget, but I think in the conversations that we have when we talk about budget goals, we're actually also talking about values, we're also actually talking about policy, and some of those things will play out at the state level as well and impact us in a different kind of way.

That's all I have.

Okay, fantastic.

And I will say um that I do think you all know I'm a big believer in local control.

Um, I think that this state leadership in particular has undercut local control um repeatedly over the course of the last few um state uh sessions, and we are a home rule sitting in county, and we need to start acting like it because if we do not, we are going to lose the ability to legislate on a lot of these issues.

Um, you know, we saw it happen with ADUs, we saw it happen with parking, we saw it happen with um transit-oriented communities.

We and I think the challenge is that as the capital city and the largest city um with some very clear goals and some very clear directions and things like our land use plans um that many other cities in the state of Colorado don't have, right?

They're you know, Delta does not have the same kinds of land use plans and the intricacies as Denver does.

And um, sorry, Delta, if you're watching, didn't mean to use you as a specific example.

Um, and so with the state, when they are legislating, they are legislating for um you know those rural communities that do not have the kinds of challenges that we have and do not have the kinds of organization that we have, and that's why home rule cities exist, cities and counties exist, right?

Um but I do think that uh this has become a pattern.

It is a pattern that is very dangerous to us and our legislative authority.

We have already, as city council members, agreed to give up significant authority that we have by being complicit in um following the state mandates as opposed to fighting them.

And uh I think we need to think about that and the importance of that and have a conversation about that because I do think that local control is an extremely important issue, and it's something that we don't talk about a lot.

Um but we have given up a significant amount of authority, and we will give up more because that that is the direction state legislators are heading.

Thoughts on this from anyone?

Yes, Councilmember Flynn.

Thank you.

Okay.

What's really aggravating about those issues, particularly land use is that the legislature has acted in areas where we already were acting.

We already were doing citywide ADUs, but we did it more intentionally with a lengthy public process.

And then after that, the legislature came in and stripped that local process away and said it doesn't matter, these are your standards.

These are your standards.

And the same is true with other areas of with parking minimums.

We already were acting on that with uh single chair.

We're already acting on that.

And so I fully support what the Madam Chair said.

Every home rule litigation that we've ever engaged in.

I know there are three.

I can't remember the third, but I know uh assault weapons ban under councilwoman Kathy Reynolds was challenged at the state level.

We won that.

We won the residency rule uh litigation.

We partnered with Durango and I think Aspen.

This was back in the in the 90s, uh the 80s or 90s after the Poundstone Amendment uh stopped our annexations.

And so it's a strong principle if we defend it.

Right.

So especially when we're moving in the same direction.

To have a hundred people, many of whom live in Delta, and I'm sorry for picking on Delta today.

Yeah, poor Delta.

We do not mean to be picking on you, Delta.

I can't even get people in my district to watch these sort of anybody from Delta's watching.

But uh for a hundred legislators, most of whom come from outside of Denver to set standards for our land use is absurd.

We're doing the things that we should be doing.

Let us do it.

So that that was that's my own comment.

I did have I did have a unremated point.

Yes, you are in the queue for after my soapbox moment.

And there's one more slide.

Um, but Councilmember Watson, I think, wanted to respond to this.

I think the valid point, I mean, I'm coming to the end of my uh chair of um the Metro Area County Commissioners, and this is something that's gonna be one of our priorities looking into 2025-2026.

It's ensuring that we're working as a metro region looking at local control issues and making sure that we are being very proactive uh in the work that we do.

So I think as for Denver, I think that's something we need to really focus on.

A lot of those land use issues um are causing us uh difficulties, especially the ADUs and when it comes to suburban um setbacks, all of those things are um legislature isn't considering um those discussions that we have within community and so with you 100% of this being a priority.

That's all great.

Thanks, Councilmember Parity.

Thoughts I just I just would say I don't think that we have I mean I guess I want to make a point of note that we have not chosen to since we were moving in the same direction on ADUs and things like that.

Um we have not challenged those land use bills, right?

And that could be different in the future if we didn't share the priority.

So I don't think that we've given up power.

I just think that we've continued trucking along on things that we were working on anyway.

So, you know, didn't have a need to move on those things.

That's how I view that.

Yeah, I will say we'll talk about ADUs on the next slide because that's not true.

Um item.

Councilmember Torres.

Hi.

Um just like a high up perspective that I've that I have, and um incredibly interested, I think, in how we use home rule when we use it and uh when we exercise that.

Um, I also recognize you know, we share a border with uh uh a lot of jurisdictions.

Lakewood um is is one of my influencing examples because they have chosen to be so limiting on growth and development, which puts intense pressure on my district.

I see it every day when it comes to um who has options for uh new builds or new housing um directly affecting my district when we have another jurisdiction that refuses to build.

Um and so I also see the kind of global right impact that some of these things can have when they're applied to everyone.

I also understand I think the piece about when we need to defend home rule and when that I think there is um just some nuance that I can't ignore there either when it is knocking on our on our door.

Um so thank you.

Yeah, I think that's really valuable perspective and don't disagree with you.

Um but I do think we're we're gonna we're we're coming up against a hard point here.

Yeah.

Um and thank you.

Uh I think I echo a lot of the sentiments that um councilmember Torres brought forth.

Um if we if we have this as a priority, so this is just for clarification.

If we have this as a as a priority, basically it means that we are watching that it will be elevated.

Um, what I do would like to do is to keep our eye on it so that we can have those nuanced conversations as things are coming through.

And I really appreciate the new part of the process of having our agencies weigh in to what that impact is within Denver.

I know that was added in this last session, and I really like that aspect of hearing from agencies as well.

Great.

Thank you.

And do you want to go on to the next slide?

And then, oh, did you want to say something?

I guess to be the so we are in the queue, but you're behind Flynn.

But Flynn said he wanted to get back in, so I messed that up.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Yeah, for this particular issue.

I want to thank you, Councilwoman Torres, because I completely agree.

I think there is some nuance when it comes to the local control conversation.

I think, yes, most definitely we should have the conversation.

And I guess, you know, what is the line, right?

And I think that would be the question I would pose to all of us because that is the job of the state legislature is to create state laws that impact the entire state.

If it's a matter of statewide concern, then that is what they are acting on, right?

And so it's a matter of like how do we then determine what those priorities are and where we want to be more forceful when it comes to local control, because I completely agree.

And I think we saw that play out over the last two years with a couple of policies where maybe some of us wanted like a statewide, you know, thing to be done.

And then there were other things that we all were in agreement that we didn't want that, or we needed to, we wanted to have our process done because what we were doing made more sense for our our you know local jurisdiction.

And so I think that it is a nuanced conversation, and it might not be a blanket, like we just always need local control, because I don't know that all the body will be in agreement every single time on every single issue.

So I think it's important like for us to engage in that conversation and to um council Pro Tem your point about the um getting the agency feedback.

We've at least since I've been here, we've been doing that all along.

I think um it's great helpful to hear from you that providing that to council members was helpful, and so that's great feedback for us to be able to continue to do that.

Um so I'm glad that you found that to be helpful.

So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks.

And I will say you guys did a great job of that.

Um just for council member new council member, you guys aren't new anymore, but you know, first term council members uh review.

I I just I want to give you a little bit of a picture of what this looked like um before you all got here, right?

It was um a person one person from the mayor's office and one person from council on a meeting with our lobbyists once a week, and then we got a text message, thumbs up or thumbs down on the following three items, and that was the extent of council's state lobbying.

Um so over the last couple of years, I want to acknowledge Councilwoman Gonzalez Guterres and Councilmember Hines and the work that they have done to change that process to ensure that we have these kinds of conversations.

I will also say that it makes it messy, right?

Like we're just learning how to do this.

We're just figuring out how this works, especially because we need to speak as uh a body um separate from speaking as individual council members in our individual capacities.

So, you know, really appreciate your feedback and your thoughts, and and this might seem like an exercise that's like not valuable, but truly it's incredibly valuable as we work with the mayor's office and our lobbyists on um on what this looks like and building out moving forward.

So that feedback is super helpful to know that it's valuable for you all to see um what's going on.

I will say one of the things we added this year, um, you saw during special session was a draw in the drop-down box.

Need more information.

Right?

Um that's great because then we can give you more information, right?

I mean, we might not be able to, but our lobbyists can give you more information.

Um, and that's really valuable and helpful for us because things happen really quickly at the state, and so the faster we can get that information to you, the faster you can make a decision so that we can take a position.

Um, just a couple of one last slide.

Um we talked about background check exemption for gun buyback programs, the legislative fix for accessory dwelling units mandate.

Um, I touched on this briefly.

Um, what happened was two years ago when ADUs came through.

We um could not agree on the position that we were going to take based on the very specific setback requirements that we have in our land use pieces.

Um the mayor's office uh outside of council took a position of support and undermined council's concerns about that and cut a deal that the uh legislature would go back the next year and fix it.

Surprise, surprise, they didn't.

So that was a learning experience for everyone in our first year, I think.

Um, but it is important that that gets fixed and that we push hard for that because that was uh an extremely inappropriate open step of authority from the mayor's office, and it was a learning experience for them too.

They were brand new at the time.

Um, but it was also not okay.

And so we need to go back and fix this now because we uh set expectations for our residents in our land use plans and community conversations that we had a very in-depth process about, public process about as it came to ADU setbacks, and then the state totally overrode those.

So that one's on this list because it's an obvious one.

Um I think it is something that we need to push hard for.

Um, and it is something that the our our lobbyists are aware of.

It is also something that the mayor's office, when coming back together the second year to realize that we weren't going to get the promises made that we uh that we had received um that they realize kind of what's going on, and and that's not gonna happen anymore.

So um so that those are two wanted to also have you all just start thinking about what other ones are there, right?

What other priorities are there that kind of you you want to us to take a look at and ask the lobbyists and the mayor's office and the city agencies to take a look at to see if there are some powerful changes that we can make at the state level based on some of the challenges that we see in Denver.

And I think there's just one last slide that talks about next steps.

So you all I think I mentioned are gonna get a survey.

Um it's a really straightforward survey, it should not take very long.

Please get it back to us by Monday the 13th.

Um, it will basically just ask you to rank how important is this budget priority to you, and then um an open box underneath that legislative priority.

Anything you want us to flag for us in specific with regards to that.

So just a starting place for us to create that document for this year that you got for last year of um you know conversations between our lobbyists and the mayor's office and agencies of where we're all gonna come together.

So that's the next steps.

I got Flynn in the queue, Ramiro Campbell, you in after?

All right, councilmember Flynn.

Thank you.

This is uh sort of a new priority, and I don't know if I call it a priority just so much as sort of an umbrella that covers all of our priorities, and that is I would like the lobby team, the administration and our analysts to look at HR one in 2026 and how how many more problems are gonna come down the road for us budget-wise, because in your presentation, you talked about the ongoing impacts of HR one on state budget, and I'd like to get a better picture in relation to our eight budget priorities.

What are the traps that lie ahead?

I don't know how easy that will be.

I don't know how difficult that will be, but that's gonna really be helpful to us going forward.

So that's I don't that's not a new budget priority, but it's a new variable that I think we need to look at with all of our eight uh priorities.

Yeah, I think that's a great flag.

Council Pro Temer, Meryl Campbell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, just for process purposes, when we give the feedback, it'll be seven.

Will it be a vote of seven if there if there are seven members that consider it a priority, then it's priority for it.

The council to pursue or like what's our threshold that we're council president uh Sandoval has made the recommendation based on the lack of response from council members um that it be a majority of respondents.

So if we can get to a majority of people responding, then that will be the um the feedback.

But there are a number of council members who just fail to respond, and that leaves us in a position where um we have to the mayor's office and council have to agree in order to uh to have our lobbyists legislate something, and um, if we don't have council members responding and we can't get to seven, then that hamstrings the city.

So what I would like to ask for is that council members respond.

Um please.

It's really really important.

But if council members are gonna choose not to respond, that is fair.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, that's if only like five people respond, three could take a position for this body.

I don't know.

I think that violates the charter.

You'll have to talk to Council President Sandoval about that.

Can I do that?

Thank you.

So that was that was actually what was presented the first year that Councilman Heinz and I were doing this, and that was again in coordination with our council leadership.

And that is what was presented to the body as the protocol.

Um then.

And I think you know, it I think last year we got a lot more response.

And so we were making it to seven.

But there are some issues that we don't get the response that we need.

And so we weren't able to take a position.

And what that did was is it didn't allow us to coordinate with the mayor's office.

It didn't allow us to do all these things that we really need to do.

And so I think if anything, hopefully it's an incentive for people to respond.

I don't know that it violates charter because we're not talking about policy in our body that we are seeking to pass for city ordinance.

Like I think it's and so we can talk about that a little bit more.

Um, but I I think council uh madam chair and I are planning to, when we get closer to the session to review the process.

So we have a whole different presentation on that, and so we'll review what the process is, and maybe at that time we can maybe have more conversation about that.

I'm just concerned about how small a majority of those.

Absolutely present.

Absolutely.

I will say the ones that we did take positions on, and that the body they were more than seven.

There were some that were almost the majority of council did say yes um and take a position on something.

Okay, yeah, but it just it had it's a function of the way our contract work, our shared contract works with the airport and the mayor's office.

Um, that in order to take a position, we have to agree.

And we have found ourselves in a situation where due to lack of response from council members, we are holding up the entire process and we can't have that.

So that was a great question.

That's the answer.

Please feel free to bring it up with council president Sandoval.

Uh please feel free to bring it up, Council President Sandoval if you would like to.

Um, and hopefully what it does is get council members to respond.

But that that takes this whole conversation off the table.

Um other thoughts or questions?

No.

Okay.

Councilmember Mario Campbell, anything else?

Thank you.

Great.

Um, wonderful.

Well, then we have a bunch of items on consent.

They're all appointments.

Um, I think.

And so nobody called those off.

And so we will um those will pass through to the full body.

Um, and seeing no one else, everyone check your inboxes, not this week, not next week, but probably the last week of September and first week of October for that uh for that survey.

And we're adjourned.

Thanks.