Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Health and Safety Committee with Denver City Council.

Coverage of the Health and Safety Committee starts now.

Good morning and welcome to the Health and Safety Committee meeting.

This is October 1st.

My name is Daryl Watson.

I'm honored to serve all of the residents of the flying district nine.

We have one briefing this morning and items on consent.

Before we start our meeting, why don't we begin with introductions?

I'll start on my right.

Ah, switching it up.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver District 2.

Sarah Hardy, one of your two council members at large.

Amanda Sawyer District 5.

Good morning, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.7.

Good morning.

Paul Cashman South Denver.

Thanks for joining us, sir.

Sedan I think I'm scared as your other council members at large.

David Torres, West Denver District 3.

Thank you all.

Everyone, thank you all for joining.

I don't think we have anyone else.

Yes, you may.

Personal privilege.

Before we get started, could we have Councilman Gonzalez, Gutierrez?

Today's not safety day, but yes.

Next time.

There's no cop series.

Dominic Moreno, it's always good to have you here.

I'll turn the floor over to you for uh introduction and also presentation.

Great.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, members of the Health and Safety Committee.

Thank you for having me this morning.

Pleased to present to you all uh just a little bit of an overview on Proposition 130.

This came out of the budget hearings last week.

Uh folks had some questions about how that funding would be administered, and so happy to kind of overview that with you today.

Uh we do have a couple of uh, I have a couple of phone friends in the audience.

Um, so we do have our lobby team here, uh Katie Hancock and Julie McKenna who can advise on any of the kind of legislative negotiations that happened during session.

Uh Emily Locke from the Department of Safety and Mike Hess from the Police Protective Association, who is also very involved in the crafting of this legislation.

Um, all right, so proposition 130.

This is an initiative that was passed in 2024, and it was proposed by Advanced Colorado, uh, which is run by Michael Fields.

Uh, and it required the state legislature to appropriate $350 million to the peace officer training and support fund for specifically for grants to local law enforcement agencies.

Just a little bit of background and history on that.

Here's uh the statewide results of proposition 130.

And on the right, you have the Denver specific results uh on that specific question.

This is uh essentially an overview of the original uses that was outlined in the text of the initiative.

So you can see here it was rather detailed, but in essence, the the purpose was for uh pay increases for uh peace officers, which were defined as police sheriff and other law enforcement officials.

It also contemplated one-time hiring and retention and merit bonuses, um, hiring additional police in certain geographic areas, um continuing uh initial and continuing education for peace officers, uh, and then uh a death benefit for the surviving spouses and children of uh peace officers who died in the light of duty.

Uh in the legislative session this this year in 2025, uh the legislature repealed and reenacted uh the initiative.

So they do not have the same requirement that you all do, where you can't touch an initiative for a certain period of time.

Um, and instead, uh what you had was the joint budget committee, um, trying to figure out how they were going to make this $350 million appropriation work uh when they're facing the same headwinds that the city is around budget deficits and everything else.

Um so the legislation that was passed was Senate Bill 25310.

It was a bill that was proposed by the joint budget committee.

Um, and it added specific definitions, outlined funding mechanisms, and the distribution formula for local law enforcement agencies, maintained that death benefit, and added much more specific definitions to that as well.

Um, and then specifically uh outlined what is a permissible purpose.

Um, and so you can see there it is for the initial and continuing education and training and compensation of peace officers, and then a specific definition for compensation, which means pay to a newly hired current or rehired peace officer or reimbursement to attend a training academy.

The joint budget committee had to get very creative because of the budget situation.

And so they created essentially a warrant of $500 million that they are essentially a loan that they are giving to the public employee retirement association.

So to Para, they designated this from the general fund reserve.

So they essentially said of the entire general fund reserve, $500 million, we will give to Para and we'll give it to them to invest in order for us to meet our commitment for proposition 130 funding.

So that $500 million corpus will be invested by Para, and any of the earnings will essentially fund the grants to local law enforcement agencies.

They did set a minimum floor of $15 million.

So no matter what happens with para-earnings, we can expect that $15 million each year will be available statewide.

But based on para's average rate of return, we are expecting more than that to be available somewhere in the realm of around $30 million, should be available each year statewide.

The funding distribution.

So they said on or before December 15th, 2026, law enforcement agencies will submit a certification to the Car Department of Public Safety, which should include a resolution or ordinance adopted by the local government that confirms that the money will not be used to supplant other funding sources.

So local governments can appeal those decisions, but they are very strict around the supplanting question.

They should also submit the number of peace officers that the local government has budgeted for the upcoming year and the total dollar amount that the local government has budgeted for expenditure for a permissible purpose.

The distribution formula is interesting.

But essentially, it allows the Department of Public Safety to annually disperse an amount equal to the base amount plus the total number of peace officers budgeted in the local government, multiplied by the peace officer adjustment.

So the base amount means $15,000.

They want to create a floor.

As you can imagine, in some localities, there are very small peace officer forces, and so they wanted to create a floor, a minimum amount of funding that would go out to each of those jurisdictions.

And then this peace officer adjustment, which means essentially the amount that the state treasurer transferred in that year based on the paraearnings, minus the amount that the department has reported for direct and indirect costs, minus the base amount, and multiplied by the number of uh eligible law enforcement agencies that year, divided by the total number of peace officers that are eligible in each of those local law enforcement agencies.

And so essentially, that's all very fancy language to say that they created a factor for if you have a larger police uh peace officer agency, if you have many peace officers, you're obviously gonna get more funding than jurisdictions that have smaller numbers.

So next steps, uh we are awaiting guidance from the Colorado Department of Public Safety.

Um we expect that guidance, I think late this year.

Does that sound right?

Early 2026, early 2026, Emily says.

Um the amount of funding again is somewhat dependent on annual para-investment earnings.

Um, and so that's a key piece of here, a piece of this.

Um, even in the most optimistic of scenarios where parainvestment earnings do well, it's gonna take about a decade, uh, in order for the legislature to meet that complete fulfillment of $350 million.

Uh, if you assume that about $30 ish million dollars is transferred each year.

Um let's say everything goes wrong and um only the minimum $15 million is transferred each year, the fulfillment year won't be reached until 2050.

With that, I'm happy open up for questions.

Uh thank you so much, uh, Dominic.

Um, succinct, clear, um, and quick.

So I appreciate you um for presenting.

We have a full queue of folks, but first want to um recognize, acknowledge uh Council President Sandoval, thank you so much for your for joining us.

Um our queue is open, and we have Councilmember's cashman and then Councilmember Albidar with some questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I was able to do the math in my I'm just checking if you could.

I'm wondering what's your best guess on what Denver would get.

Um, uh uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, Councilman Castron, great question.

I might defer to Emily on this.

Um peace officers are specifically defined in the legislation, so they do include obviously police officers, sheriffs, um, some of the court martials are eligible as well.

Um, so I don't know if we have any preliminary numbers on the number of peace officers that would qualify that we would certify, but that would obviously dictate how much uh in funding is available.

Good morning, Emily Lobbed legislation and policy for the Department of Public Safety.

Um, it is a great question, and one that I wish I had anticipated and could have looked in the budget book and given you that number.

So I will follow up with that.

Um, as um said, we do believe, based on reading the implementation statute, that it would be the uniform employees of our Denver Police Department, Denver Sheriff's Department, as well as our Denver County Court Marshals.

Um, so I'll round up what that figure is and we'll get that back to you all.

Yeah, I mean, if we're looking at somewhere in the 15 to 30 million a year range statewide, we're probably more like the five to seven outside type of number rather than a giant hit.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Glad to do the math for you.

I appreciate Councilmember Cashman.

Councilmember Albidras.

Thank you so much.

Um, thank you for the information.

I'm still a little bit confused on what our eligible expenses to get this.

So is it just a amount per peace officer that can cover anything, or do we need to show expenses?

I know it's supposed to be funds that are not already allocated, and I'm curious how that functions with as we consider raises potentially for some or have already approved some.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, Councilman Councilwoman Alvidrez, uh, great question.

Um, so I do think um uh the supplanting language is very clear.

Uh that it can be, it is very specific in statute that it can be used for compensation increases.

So um I I think it could potentially be utilized to uh essentially within collective bargaining agreements with peace officers, those types of things I think are eligible expenses.

Um obviously the reimbursement for attendance at a training academy is also a permissible use.

You do have to certify all those expenditures with the Colorado Department of Public Safety.

So they are keeping very close eye on what the eligible expenditures are, and if they if there's any belief or inkling that they have that we might be supplanting it, right?

So using these dollars to, in a sense, take place of our local dollars, um, they they will pull that money.

Um, and that language is pretty clear in the legislation.

And so then it sounds like it is a one-time pot of money that they anticipate to spend.

It will not be re-imp, you know, if if we did start depending on this money 10 years from now, 2030, eventually this money will no longer be there.

Is that correct?

Uh Councilwoman of League, you're exactly right.

Um, the initiative at its outset never specified whether it was one-time or ongoing.

Um, so the legislature has treated it as one time, and that eventually when they meet their fulfillment year, which is the year that they have transferred a total of 350 million dollars, the funding will expire.

Okay, and then what happens to the funds that were moved into Para?

Sorry, that's three questions, I'll get off of this.

No, Councilwoman Vieger is a great question.

Um that once that has been met, the funds will be transferred back to the general fund reserve.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, committee chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Alvidras.

Councilmember Sawyer, and Councilmember Gonzalez, thanks.

Councilmember Albidra has got most of my questions.

Um, I just want to make sure I understand, because this doesn't make a ton of sense the way it was rewritten.

Um, so let's say, for example, we have a sheriff's department that's at 60% staffing, and we do something amazing, and we get our sheriff's department up to 80% staffing over the next five years.

Um, how would these dollars be allocated appropriately if it's essentially one time?

Councilmember Sawyer.

Go back and ask Michael Fields that.

Yeah, I mean, I'd I'd like to, but I like I I literally don't, at the risk of sounding stupid, like I don't get it.

This doesn't make any sense.

Math, the math is not mathing.

Councilmember Sawyer, it's it's a great question.

Uh, because in reality, uh, because it never specified whether the funding was ongoing or one time, um, obviously, uh, given that option, the legislature is trying that has decided to treat it as one time given the budget constraints that they were already dealing with.

Uh, yet the purpose of the funds is ongoing.

And so eventually, when that fulfillment year is met, I think they are expecting local governments to have to pick up the tab for whatever they allocated with proposition 130 funds.

Is that an assumption or is that a sorry?

Yeah, great question.

Assumption, only logical conclusion, like I think they're equal.

Um, but I don't know if our lobby team might have anything else to offer, but uh, I don't believe there's been any conversations on continuing um this source of funding beyond the fulfillment year.

So, follow-up question to that.

Um, and this might be for you guys.

Uh I'm looking at our lobbyists for those of you who are watching at home.

Um, is this a space where it's appropriate for us to start kind of having a conversation about an unfunded mandate and advocating now?

Or is this something that sort of we need to hold off on and just keep in the hopper and know is coming and we can have a discussion about it in the future?

Like, what is the um what's the plan here?

Yeah, I think I we would obviously want to work with um the legislative committee with council and the mayor's office and with our lobby team to start figuring out what that engagement looks like, given that um there is a fiscal cliff that will happen eventually with these funds.

Okay, that's really scary.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Councilmember Sawyer, sorry for asking your follow-up.

No, you're all good.

Um, it's happened, sorry.

Um uh councilmember Gonzalez Gutierrez and Councilmember Flynn.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I think I think Councilman Aldri has kind of asked the questions about what are permissible or what is allowable.

I guess I still it still seems very vague, I guess.

And I did read, maybe it was in the fiscal note, it did talk about some rulemaking that would be done by Department of Safety, I think.

Um, do we know where that is in process?

Because it sounds like there's rulemaking still that needs to happen to determine what are the actual things that this money can be spent on.

Do we know where that is at?

You're exactly right, Councilwoman Gonzalski Chairs.

There will be rulemaking.

Um, I will defer to Emily Locke, who I think has perhaps had more conversations with our state counterparts on that.

Emily Locke, legislation and policy department of public safety.

Um, yes, council member, that is exactly what we were referring to.

Of what we're anticipating coming in early 2026, is that guidance from the State Department of Public Safety?

Um, what I do not know is whether that will be the completed rulemaking or whether that will be just a timeline where we can anticipate that rulemaking.

I can say that under the terms of the implementation statute, we are not required to provide our first certification of eligible employees until December of 2026.

Um, so there is some time 2026 built into it to develop all of what the implementation will look like.

But yes, we are absolutely waiting and hoping that more specificity around those permissible uses will be part of that.

So I guess part of that, what is our role then in that rulemaking, and how can we have you know some voice perhaps in that process?

And I don't know, Emily, if that's you, if that's you know, lobbyists usually attend those.

Um just curious thoughts on that.

Because I think we'd probably want to have a say.

I've heard a couple of things come up here.

I've heard even in previous conversations with the mental health and wellness, that fund being decreased for our law enforcement officers and knowing how incredibly important I mean, I would say that falls under training, but what we've heard so far is that we don't know that it will.

But if we're not part of the conversation at the rulemaking table, then perhaps we can make sure that it's part of the conversation.

Yep, I would offer the Department of Safety is absolutely on board with being part of the conversation.

Um, and so we'll work really closely with the mayor's office and the city attorney's office um to help figure out whatever that opportunity looks like for us.

I would just add perhaps this is an issue where the legislative committee might want to start meeting sooner than the legislative session, just to figure out how to engage in that.

I think that's a great idea.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez Gutierrez, Councilmember Flynn, and then Councilmember Torretz.

Hi, Mr.

Chair.

A couple uh quick questions, hopefully, or maybe not so quick.

But the first easiest one first uh this loan to Para, as my wife just got her monthly para retirement deposit uh today.

So does this in any way place any burdens on Para that uh that make it a little more difficult on retirees, or is it completely without impact uh to the retirees in the para system?

Uh Councilman Flynn, I think it's without impact to employees within the para-retirement system.

However, um there are some conversations around uh legislation was passed a while ago to uh essentially have para make automatic adjustments to contribution rates to colas for retirees uh when they anticipate some sort of um uh deficit uh in their ability to meet their commitments.

Um there have there isn't that has been triggered a couple of times in the past couple years.

Um they do anticipate perhaps another uh round of that being triggered, um, but they are working with the state legislature to figure out is are there are there ways that they can um figure out another path outside of that?

But based on this, the 500 million dollar warrant to para, there is not expected to be an impact on retirees at all or current employees.

Just the cost of living adjustment, maybe, but that could be unrelated to this.

It's yeah, largely unrelated, yeah.

Okay.

I've always had a difficult time trying to figure out how one would calculate uh whether we are whether a new source of revenue is supplanting uh current effort, like when we had the parks legacy fund passed, it's not supposed to supplant any of our regular appropriations.

But as we see, especially this coming year, how do you tell that you're not supplanting something?

So is that a specific formula versus more art than science?

Uh Councilman Flynn, in the legislation, there is some specific conditions in which they qualify as supplanting, and so um uh so those are outlined in the bill.

They do uh indicate that an argument, a relevant argument against supplanting is if there's been a total reduction in the amount of funding available for that uh purpose in any given year, whether that's from federal, state, or local funding sources.

So that is a rebuttable presumption that you weren't supplanting if there was a total reduction overall.

Okay.

Uh, last question on uh slide, whatever this is.

Sorry.

It says that um the department of Public Safety shall annually disperse an amount equal to the base amount plus the total number of peace officers budgeted.

And the number of peace officers budgeted is not always the number of actual bodies filling that budget, as we know.

So is that actually the way it's working?

Councilman Flynn, that is how it is.

That is the specific language in the legislative text.

I imagine there may be some sort of reconciliation.

I don't know, Emily, if you know, I that might be spelled out in the rulemaking process eventually.

Okay, because we've budgeted for X number of police officers or deputies, and we don't always rule them, but that will work for our advantage.

Have those in the budget then.

Interesting.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Flynn.

Uh, Councilmember Torres and Council President Pro Tem or Mara Campbell.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Dominic.

Uh, can you expand a little bit for me and understanding um both the fiscal cliff but also what municipalities would be required to maintain that this fund initiates?

Can you just get into that a little bit more with me?

Yeah.

Thank you for the question, Councilwoman Torres.

Um, so essentially the funding is anticipated to be utilized to hire new police officers to um uh support the rehiring of police officers or peace officers, sorry, uh reimbursement to attend a training academy.

And so I think that the goal was um to try to get local law enforcement agencies up to full force and to provide a funding source to do that.

The challenge is in order to maintain that full force capacity, that that is not a one-time expenditure.

That is something that will be ongoing, and so as that funding goes away, I think it'll be incumbent on the local law enforcement or sorry, local governments to maintain um that source of funding.

Was it part of the conversation that um perhaps the issue that we don't face is interest?

Um, uh, but is in process uh much more so we can we get full recruit classes.

Not everybody makes it out of those, like uh is it a different um uh source issue than just um that just payment.

Um and the other question that I have is there any discussion on how this lands on top of collective bargaining processes and if we've already agreed on a particular merit increase schedule, what this does to that.

Uh Councilman Torres, uh that is a a good thought, and I think we all know and understand that there are many things that go into a recruitment of of a police force of to peace officers that are beyond just compensation, right?

It is also um the amount of time uh that is spent to uh be trained and everything else.

It is the it is the the general attitude towards the profession right now, right?

There are a lot of factors.

Um the challenge here is that uh proposition 130 really took just the approach of increasing the amount of money available for compensation and to put more officers in certain geographic areas.

Now, obviously, that language has all gone away because the state legislation, the state legislature repealed and reenacted the statute.

Okay, um, but um I think the piece that uh around collective bargaining is a good one, and I think that's something that we'll likely have to wait for guidance uh on the rules uh coming down from the College Department of Public Safety on how those types of issues are anticipated to be dealt with.

What I worry about is an application being done that like we've approved a multi-year CBA in some cases, um, if in those interim years an application is made to the fund that um modifies that while we're actively um uh paying out an agreed-upon term.

So just curious about um that one.

Um can we limit ourselves in terms of what we apply for funding for?

Like we can select out or like who makes that decision on behalf of like Denver's law enforcement agencies.

Councilman Torres, great question.

Um, it is the language in the bill is permissive, so local governments don't have to apply for funding.

Um around who makes that decision.

Um, Emily, if you want to jump in, uh, family lock department of safety.

Um, council member, I think that's we're all still figuring that part out.

Um, so we're definitely we're watching this closely.

Um I can't say internally, operationally within the department of safety.

We have met with our our chief, our sheriff, um executive director, finance human resources, and so our next step is to get that guidance from the State Department of Public Safety, understand exactly what that landscape is, and then figure out from there what does this look like and what does that decision making process look like?

I just say council doesn't play a role in departments applying for grants, um, if that's a comparable thing.

We only play a role in when we receive the funding, like what what happens to that structurally?

So that would be really interesting to me.

Um uh what we set up in terms of uh application process, um, just because this has such long-reaching, I think, implications budget-wise.

The only other thing I'd offer is that uh specific to this source of funding, you will council will have to take action to pass an ordinance or resolution that says that we are not supplanting local funding sources with the receipt of these funds.

That was spelled out in the legislation.

Yeah, okay.

All right, thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Torres.

Uh Council President Pro Tem Romero Campbell, and then Councilmember Parity.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, a lot of my questions have been answered.

Um, I have one that's a little bit on a different thread.

Um, survivor benefits, the one million, does that come out of the 15 million?

Does that come out of PERA?

And I think about the expectations.

Um, how does that get paid out and where does it come from then?

Uh thank you, uh, Council President Pro Tem.

Uh there in the legislation, uh, it is not part of the $500 million para uh warrant.

Uh it is a separate transfer from the legislature.

So I believe in 2026 they plan to transfer $5 million towards that death benefit, and then another five million in the subsequent year uh to make sure that that is covered.

Because it does say like peace officers and first responders, so then does it get expanded to firefighters or EMTs?

Like who else is eligible for that?

Yeah, they use a specific definition of first responder, uh, which does include EMTs, does include firefighters.

Um, so yes, they are eligible.

Okay.

And if that survivor benefit goes to a specific area, it's it's kind of just seen broadly, it isn't like okay.

Um individual cities or towns would have, you know, a certain amount allocated to them.

It's as needed.

Correct, that's right.

It is as needed, yeah.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem and then Councilmember Parity.

Yeah, thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

And yeah, Domino, thank you very much for this, and I forget who asked for this presentation.

Maybe it was Council Member Albedoes.

It was you anyway, it's great.

Um, it's very helpful.

So whoever's thought that was thank you for bringing it to us.

Was it you?

I think it was.

Well, anyway, I feel like you're here.

Who thought of this is not my question?

I'm not doing that.

No, I'm joking.

One question out.

So I'm curious about the kind of the training category.

Um, and Dominic, I'm wondering if um we've gotten much thinking or guidance yet from the state about I mean, understanding that we can't supplant that seems like kind of a promising potential use of some of this funding for Denver because I just have the sense that um you can always you know use more um more funding for training.

Have you talked yet with the safety agencies about what they might want to use that for if we apply for it?

Has it been too premature to do that?

Like, I mean, Emily, if you have any thoughts about that, I'd love to hear that.

Yeah, uh, I would just say we're in initial conversations, I'll let Emily weigh in.

Uh, but via the legislation, training academy has a very specific definition that they referenced in the statute.

Um, so uh the specific um definition is training academy means a basic or reserve peace officer training program approved by the post board that is offered by a training academy, community college, college, or university.

But I'm also looking at initial and continuing education for law enforcement, right?

Yeah.

Oh, so that is a permissible purpose.

Uh, but training academy has a very specific definition in the statute, but okay, I gotcha.

Yeah.

Emily Lack, Department of Safety.

Um, yes, I would just add that we're trying to parse really closely those definitions.

We're again waiting for Department of Public Safety to give us guidance.

Um, I know that our agency leadership have been in conversation with our personnel.

I know that our unions um have been in conversation with the folks that they represent as well, and so I think my sense is that we will have some sort of coming together and discussing about you know what exactly does this look like and what should be the prioritized use amongst those permissible uses.

That's exactly what I was curious about.

Is like what is the kind of timeline of that process?

And um, so I think we would probably all love to hear back when there's a you know consensus about that.

Thank you.

Um that was all.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you.

Uh Councilmember Parity.

And before we go to the second round, I've got a few questions.

So, as far as legislative steps, uh, I know we spoke to the ordinance um possibility for supplanting.

Are there any other legislative steps that this proposition requires of the city?

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The beyond um the other usual ones, which is obviously council action will be needed for the receipt of the actual funds.

Um, but yeah, the the actual local legislative steps are one passing that ordinance or resolution saying no sub no supplanting of the funds.

Uh, and then two, the actual receipt of the funds would be a council action.

Okay, and for governance process, when will we begin to see?

I know Emily spoke to Denver's process kind of around the first quarter of next year.

When will we begin to see statewide what folks are um providing as far as their governance structure for how they are determining eligibility and so forth?

What's the expectation that the team has?

If any, um, are there any requirements for timelines within the actual proposition?

I'll maybe defer to Emily if she's heard anything from our peer jurisdictions about what they anticipate.

Emily Lack, Department of Safety.

Um, it's a good question, council member.

Um, I do not believe that there is any specificity around how local jurisdictions will prioritize or handle that disbursement.

Um, I do expect that our agency um leadership in particular will be in contact with their peers to determine, you know, how are you doing this?

What are you doing with it?

I can say on the I'll call it the back end of that governance.

There are specific requirements, however, for the agencies to provide reporting and auditing functions back to the state to account for how we're using the funding.

Um, so I'll go back and read it more closely as well to make sure I'm not misremembering.

Um, but I do think it was left rather open on the front end, but then on the back end, there is that expectation that there will be um the accountability and the transparency around the use.

If there are any capacity impacts on the evaluating how those funds are used or are those um uh expenses that can be paid from that fund as well.

So if you are doing additional auditing comms, all of that stuff, there's a cost to that.

Is that just simply assumed by the general fund of the municipality, or is it within this prop cover?

I do know that the implementation statute um sets out that a specific percentage of the available funds can be directed over to the state department of public safety for administration.

Um, I do not believe that the local municipalities were given that same sort of indirect cost benefit, but again, that'll definitely be something we watch for in that direction from the state.

One final question before we go back to the the queue on para.

I'm trying to understand a loaning process, and so understand that there are you know headwinds with para um year over year.

Uh is a loan in a special revenue fund type thing where that cannot be touched, no matter where what the systems or impacts to para is.

So we can't assume some of that 500 million could be moved back to help shore up para over to long-term investment.

Okay.

That's correct.

It's a specifically designated fund that can't be, you know, used to uh resolve the unfunded liability for PARA generally.

Uh this is strictly for an investment in order to generate revenue that can then be dispersed to local law enforcement agencies.

Okay.

And definitely we'll have this team back as your process begins within uh health and safety.

So we have a second round.

Um we have uh council member Albidras and Councilmember Sawyer.

Great, thank you.

Um another question I have is: is there an eligibility date like expenses starting after the ballot was initiative was passed?

Is it January 125, January 126?

When um are we eligible to bill for some of the funds?

Uh thank you, Councilwoman Alvidrez.

Uh, we're not anticipating that any funds will be eligible for reimbursement um or or for allocation until 2027.

Um the first initial transfer will occur in 2026.

However, we don't expect to have I think the rulemaking set forth by then uh before that, you know, the full year allocation.

Part of this is challenging because you know the state runs on a uh June to July to June fiscal year, and we're on a calendar fiscal year.

And so, but in order for us to actually budget for and receive some of those funds, we're not anticipating that to happen before 2027.

So we won't receive funds until 2027, but could those funds in 2027 potentially reimbursed costs incurred in 2020 or 2026 expenditures.

That's a good question.

I I think uh the rulemaking will probably spell out what what the eligible uh purposes are.

And so then my other question was did we account for this in 2026 budget?

Sounds like definitely not correct.

Okay, that's all I have.

Thank you, Committee.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Sawyer.

Thanks.

Um, I just wanted to clarify if rulemaking hasn't come out yet.

Are we sure we are going to get to decide where the money goes?

Emily, do you want to?

Because I feel like we're all talking under the assumption that we are, but I feel like maybe we aren't.

I just Emily Locke Department of Safety.

Um, again, really good question.

Um, obviously, there's a lot that we don't know about this.

Um I will say my read of the statute and of the legislative work around this, and definitely correct me if I'm incorrect anyone that was part of the process, um, was that the intent was for the state to administer a grant program to the local governments to be able to do or take measures related to the hiring and the retention of peace officers.

Um I believe based on some of the I'll call it the legislative background, um, that I was hearing during the session that there was robust discussion about what should that level of control be at the local level versus governance to make sure that it's more uniform across the state.

Um and so I think in a sense it's kind of silent at this point.

Um that's the best answer I have.

Thank you, Emily.

Good times.

Um, okay, and then my last follow-up question was around DHHA, right?

So if the definition of a first responder includes EMT and Denver Health is the provider and contractor of our EMTs, is Denver Health a part of this conversation?

Is there a would are they a separate entity from us in this?

Would they be able to apply for that?

So this is like 15 questions, so you see where I'm going with this, right?

Like, uh, are we competing essentially with Denver Health for Denver funds?

Um for the looks like Emily's got something to say here.

Emily Lock Department of Safety.

Um, this one I can't answer, Councilmember.

Um, so there are two really separate provisions in this statute.

Um, related to the peace officer training and support fund.

The definition there of eligible peace officers um is set separately from that, but included in the statute.

The first responder death benefit has a separate definition of first responders eligible for um essentially line of duty deaths as defined in the statute.

Um, for the first responders as defined in the statute.

And so there's a separate process for that death benefit.

Again, that will run through the Department of Public Safety to administer at the state level.

And the defined peace officers with that part of the bill do not include EMTs.

Got it.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer.

Looking around the room for any additional questions.

This is a lot, uh, Dominican team, and uh I think um there may be once rulemaking concludes wonderful uses that can help support um those who serve us.

I think that the tricky thing is with one time amounts from the state, um, and creating a culture or rooting that into process or budgets that's not continual.

That will be something I think we need to really pay attention to.

So I appreciate you and the legislative team.

I thank you to our legislative committee and also um health and safety will definitely have folks back, but there's too many questions on this, especially as far as the scaling and longevity of support received and then um support ending abruptly.

We've had some CLIF impacts from other things that came from the federal government, and we knew how difficult that is going forward once that cliff hit.

So thank you so much, Dominic.

Thank you so much to everyone for participating.

We have, I believe it's four items on consent.

Let me make sure I say correctly.

Yes, four items consent.

Nothing has been pulled off.

Um, so with that, a meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.