Welcome back to this biweekly meeting of the budget and policy committee of Denver City Council.

Join us for the discussion as the budget and policy committee starts now.

Have the honor of being chair of budget and policy.

We have a great agenda before us today.

But before we get started, let's go around the room and I'll start to my left.

Hi, Councilwoman Shanto and Lewis, District 8.

Good afternoon, Darren Watson.

Fine, District 9.

Hi, everyone.

So I can tell you that as one of your council members at large.

Good afternoon.

Paul Cashman South Denver District Six.

Amanda Sorry, District 5.

Lucky District 7.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2.

Stacey Gilmore, District 11.

Hey Denver, Chris Hines, Denver.

Perfect 10.

All right, thank you.

First up, oh, Councilman, and then everyone online.

Thank you.

Damie Torres with Denver District 3.

Okay, perfect.

So first up, we have Councilman Sawyer with transportation demand management policy.

Take it away.

The floor is yours.

And council members, if you'd like to get in the queue, just use Teams or get my attention.

All right.

Well, thank you.

You guys are gonna hear a lot from me today, so I will try and keep this as short as possible.

So the first item that I'm bringing to you guys today is uh a look at our transportation demand management and kind of um what we might do differently or better.

So for those of you who don't remember, I voted no on removing parking minimums at the night of the hearing.

I did so for two reasons, and I said this on the floor.

The first reason is because I think we should have sued the state for a massive overreach of local control.

Um, and the second reason is because we don't have a parking problem in Denver.

We have an overparking problem in Denver.

Um, and so I started kind of thinking through what could we do differently?

What could we do to kind of address this problem?

Um, and I want to just give a huge shout out to Dottie, especially Nathan, um, and and also to CPD, because I I've been kicking around an idea uh for a potential solution to this, and I just want to present it to you all so you know I'm thinking about it and kind of get your feedback on what you guys think about it.

So um we'll just get started with a little bit of our agenda.

Next slide.

Um, so we know our TDM ordinance was signed into law in 2021.

It is an ordinance that is administered by Dottie.

Um, and and we'll talk a little bit about exactly what it does, but since then, some of the changes to state law have um impacted the way our TDM ordinance works.

Um, and so it Dottie has been working on some updates to it on the policies and procedures, rules and regs side of things to help kind of address that challenge.

Um, but I want to I want to go a little further if we can.

Next slide, please.

So um just to talk a little bit about what projects are covered by the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance that exists right now.

Um, this is a fantastic graphic that Dottie provided us.

Uh so tier one and two projects must develop a TDM plan, and the point of that transportation demand management or TDM plan um is to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips in our city, right?

And there are a couple of different ways that a developer can do this, and there's a menu of options.

So it's things like a developer could be building an office building, and those um lessees who are uh leasing the space in the office building could buy eco passes through RTD for all of their um staff members, right?

Part of the challenge we're seeing with an option like that is that RTD service is not great.

Um, and so people are not riding RTD.

So what we're what we see is that there's an option, there's an opportunity here to fulfill the TDM ordinance requirements, but not actually impact the number of single occupancy vehicle trips that are happening in our city because if you buy the eco-passes, you fulfill the ordinance, but that doesn't mean people use them, right?

Um so there are a few, that's just one example.

There are a few different options, but um kind of just wanted to give you the background on what our TDM ordinance is, what it has done, and what it does and what it is, uh what it could maybe do better.

Next slide.

Um, so again, a couple of different TDM strategies, car share, um, you know, on-site child care, some different bike infrastructure and pedestrian infrastructure that would make a difference so people feel more comfortable walking or biking to a location.

Um, but if they bike to that location, they need a place to put their bike.

Maybe they need a place to take a shower.

Um, you know, they need a place to make sure that their bike doesn't get stolen while they're at work.

There's lots of kind of different moving parts to this that are um what I would describe as um whittling away the efficacy of the ordinance.

Next slide, please.

Uh so a couple of different challenges.

Um we're trying to, again, reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.

Um, we've removed the parking minimum minimums.

The TDM program continues to work with that outdated zoning parking minimums as kind of a baseline because there has to be uh some sort of thresholds within the TDM ordinance that allows Dottie to be able to, and it's it's truly Nathan Pope who's here.

Um thank you for everything, Nathan.

I'm so appreciative of you.

Um, but it it's it that allows Dottie to enforce this in some way, right?

And what the tool was that Dottie used to enforce it was minimum parking requirements, which we no longer have.

Um market trends, as we'll you'll see in a minute, are moving um closer to kind of on par appropriate parking um levels, but many projects continue to be overparked.

So you'll remember on the on the floor, the night of the parking minimums hearing, um, CPD actually provided to us a number of examples of um developments, the number of parking that was required, and the number of parking that was actually built.

And it is extraordinary to see some of these examples and how much more parking was built than was actually required.

We have an overparking problem in our city.

So these are two examples of that.

Um, these are examples from the night of the Dotty hearing or the night of the CPD hearing to remove um parking minimums from the zoning code.

So 100 Cook is a CMX 5 office building.

It was required to have 136 faces built 216, right?

1145 South Broadway, same thing, 470 dwelling units, 428 were required.

691 were built at $50,000 a pop.

So this is also adding to the cost of housing in our city.

Um, and that one, 1145 South Broadway, is within a half mile of two different light rail stations.

Next slide, please.

So I want to give a huge shout out to uh Dottie and CPD and also Scott at the apartment appraisers.

Scott actually made this slide for us because this is something that he has looked at for a very, very long time.

I'm gonna just walk you through this because there's a lot of dots, right?

Um, so the there we're looking at sort of three timelines.

The gray uh line that you see is developments from 2010 to 2014.

The blue is 15 to 19, and then the orange is now, right?

2020 to 2024.

Can you cover over the gray?

Thank you, Mouse.

Oh, got it.

Okay.

Got it.

Sorry, I couldn't see that far out.

Yeah, it's hard.

Yeah, we should have probably done it in different color.

Um, yes.

So what you're seeing on this slide is that no matter what kind of years you're looking at, the parking, um, number of parking spaces that are being built in developments is getting closer to the actual need and requirement, right?

The trend lines are going down.

That is a good thing.

And that tells us that some of our policies are working.

But what you also see are these dots, right?

And what the dots are telling us is that there are outliers.

Those dots are developments that have happened in the first time frame and the second time frame and the third time frame that are kind of well above the trend line.

So the point is, in general, we're getting there, but even still, and historically, always there have been these kind of extraordinary outliers that are building way more parking than are actually necessary.

So that's what this slide is telling you.

Um, I'm happy to go through it in more detail if you have questions about it, but I feel like the takeaway from this slide is that there are a number of outliers, a number of developers who build and have historically built since 2014 over the last 10 years, more parking than is required for their units.

Next slide, please.

So I don't, I didn't come to you with any language, I didn't come to you with any specifics.

Um I've been doing research into this, and I kind of just I want to know what you guys think about this.

Um I feel like the questions are, you know, how can we kind of change up the TDM ordinance so that we are ensuring that we're getting better outcomes than what we're getting right now?

Um Dottie has Nathan has already done a lot of that work on the rules and reg side in terms of um implementing that TDM requirement earlier in the process so that there is a conversation, it's not just a box that has to be checked by a developer, but it's a conversation that has to happen with Audi on things like um, you know, are you what is your TDM strategy?

Are you willing to, as you're designing this building, build in a bike locker or something like that, right?

Where or showers where people could actually kind of come and um and bike to work and then have the facilities that they need to then go through a whole work day instead of being a hot, sweaty mess, you know, in their office.

Um, you know, what levers do we have to prevent overparking?

Should we consider something like parking maximums?

Um, I don't know that there's a lot of political will to implement something like parking maximums in the city of Denver, which is okay, but I want us to kind of think about it.

Um, the idea I had was to consider a parking fee for extra spots.

So if you are gonna overpark, you should pay for those.

And the reason is because those parking spots get used, and that means there's health and safety uh issues with pedestrians and bicyclists on our roads.

It means our roads get more wear and tear, it means um, you know, that uh people are not using RTD and using public transportation.

There's kind of a lot of impacts to single occupancy vehicle trips on our actual infrastructure and on the health and safety of the community as a result of this overparking phenomenon that we're seeing from some of our developers.

Um, you know, and and can we kind of do Denver can comparisons for out-of-state developers?

I will tell you in district five, this is a hundred percent true, and I can give you a couple of district five examples, and it's a developer from Texas, right?

Um, so there are kind of future considerations I want us to talk through.

Next slide.

Um, and then if you guys think that this is maybe a good idea, um, something you're interested in or something you want to look more in, I'm happy to partner with anyone on it.

Um, so please let me know.

Um, we would need to hire some sort of contractor to actually answer a number of questions that we would need in order to move some forward with something like this, right?

Like, what is the right number of parking spots?

What is the right amount of dollars?

What is the right, uh, should it be done by context, right?

Should we have the same rules in downtown Denver as we have in Southeast Denver?

I don't know, right?

And I'm not an expert at this.

Um I am willing to use some of my office budget to hire a consultant to who is an expert at this to um take a look at and get some answers to some of these questions for us, but I don't want to spend the money if it's not something that you all are not, you know, particularly interested in or think would be valuable.

Um, so there will be next steps.

I don't know what they will be.

Um, this is truly in the policy uh ether stage, and just here to kind of get your feedback, answer questions, get your thoughts, and and kind of give me direction on where we might go with this if it is something that um you all think would be a valuable uh change to our um city.

And I I will say it would not happen, I don't think within the zoning code, it would be specific to our TDM ordinance because this is kind of specific to transportation demand management, reduction of single occupancy vehicles, et cetera.

Um, but I don't know, so I guess we'll see.

Um but would love to hear your your thoughts.

And before I stop, Nathan or Dottie team, do you guys have anything you want to add?

Introduce yourself first, please.

Hi there, Nathan Pope.

I'm a planner with Dottie and manage the transportation demand management program.

Uh, nothing to add, just want to say thank you for your partnership, and we're excited to work with you all on this topic.

Yeah, thank you so much.

I really appreciate it.

And I'm joined by my colleague uh Libby from CPD as well.

So, I appreciate you.

Do you have anything you want to add from the CPD side?

Okay, great.

Awesome.

With that, uh, we will open it up to questions.

Awesome.

So I have lots of back, so I'll put myself in the queue.

But first, Councilmember Alvidres, Flan Cashman Hines, and Watson.

Thank you.

Thank you for doing some digging on this.

Um, just to speak to the specific instance in District 7 that you brought up, um, it has been an issue.

I don't know that this is the right solution for it, but I think that also what I'm curious about is what is the cost for um what if someone has a business where they're selling parking?

And that's what the issue here at this building is that they are able to sell that parking.

Um, and so at what point is it, and the other concern with that particular building is that there are affordable units, and so those affordable units are they coupled or not coupled with parking, and can that would that be part of the research that you do?

Yeah, it's a great question.

I think that's right.

I mean, there are so many different um iterations of what parking looks like, right?

And in that example, there is affordable housing in there, and so um at the time that that was built, there was a point one uh requirement for per unit requirement for parking.

I think one of the other questions we need to ask is uh what would that number be if it made sense?

What are the uses of those parking if they're funding the affordable units via the sale, the rental of parking spaces on a monthly basis or whatever, like that might change the calculation, right?

Um, so I think that there's a lot there for us to look at.

Um, and I will also say that part of the challenge here, and I said this on the floor, is that the free market still requires that parking get built, right?

In order for a developer to get their financing, their developer dollars require that they build in some parking.

So um so removing minimum parking requirements is not gonna solve the problem that does exist.

I think the the challenge is to figure out, like, how can we help direct the market in a better way that achieves our goals?

And I don't know what the answer to that is.

Um, so yeah, I think it's a great flag, and it's something that we need to we need to keep looking into.

And how would it affect like so one of the issues with some of the light rail stations is that initially they were built around season parking lots, and now those are going away, but people are still driving to the light rail station.

And so, if there is a market to build like a parking garage, is that still something you're looking at the same way as the parking that is being provided for a housing unit?

Um, no, is the short answer to that.

Uh uh, so the our zoning code deals with commercial and residential properties differently.

Um, Nathan, I don't know.

Maybe you can answer if you don't mind if I phone a friend.

Um, in terms of the TDM ordinance itself, do you guys look at residential and commercial differently because that's the way our zoning code looks at it?

Um we look at it differently just for calculating what their requirements will be, but they both have the same requirements.

We use the menu of strategies.

We try to have strategies for residential, for office building for all different types of uses, and then for mixed use, we we have a calculation to bring those two things together.

So we do look slightly differently.

Okay.

Got it.

So for something like what Councilwoman Alviderez is talking about in terms of like an RTD light rail station, um, how are they exempt from the TDM ordinance?

Are they how do you do the offsets there?

Or is it because it's a light rail station it like automatically fits into the TDM ordinance?

Um, we're really excited.

We often work with RTD on those those projects when they're redeveloping those surface lots.

We do.

No, we work closely with them on this, and they're still required to do their TDM plans.

Um, you know, I think from our perspective, that's great.

We want that density at the light rail station of units of offices so that people can just hop off the train and get right to where they need to go.

Um, oftentimes what we'll see is that those buildings in partnership with RTD will build extra parking at those lots for that park and ride function.

Um, so that you're getting uh uh places for people to park and ride, and also those units and apartments right close to the train.

So I think that fits into exactly what you're saying, and something we need to consider as we do kind of this research and make a determination if that's the way we're gonna move forward.

Um, because there's got to be a balance there when we're talking about the unique space of an RTD station.

Yeah, that's interesting, and when you talk about that, I think about the light rail stations in my district.

Um they're very accessible to the apartments and people that live right there, especially between Broadway and them, but to the west side of my district where you have to cross the train tracks, cross the river, cross the highway just to get to the light rail station.

Those people like myself do have to often use a car to safely cross all of those things.

Um, so that's just another thing that to think about.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up in the queue, Councilmember Flynn.

Um, Madam President.

Um, it would be really helpful to look at the chart more linearly, uh, to separate out the three time periods and just go from 2010 to 2024 in a long string.

It'd be about this long and won't fit on a slide.

But help me because it looks to me like, as you said, current policies are working to trend is downward.

So part of me says, why mess with it?

Uh I will point out that um there's a lot of reasons people aren't taking RTD and driving instead.

I'm reminded of a uh presentation we went to, I think Councilman Cash was there as our first term, uh, about uh about transit.

I think Rut Bridges was the speaker, and he said he said, transit picks you up where you aren't and takes you where you don't want to go.

And that's I think that's why a lot of people aren't aren't taking RTD right now, and they're so I'm I'm wondering if if we said I agree now is not the time to do maximums.

You and I were the only ones who voted against parking minimums, so uh uh history will show whether we're on the right side or not.

But part of that argument was letting the market decide.

And so I think the time for looking at parking maximums is down the is down the road, pardon the analogy, uh, and to see whether that works, because if we had parking maximums in the zoning code, then we would have to have the zoning administrator would have to do all the calculations that cost all the staff hours that we thought we were saving by not having the minimums.

So I would I would suggest deferring that conversation.

Um I I hear what uh councilwoman Albiter was saying about some of the overparking.

Uh what if it's used for revenue generation to help subsidize, you know, off-site parking or park here, not just residents or customers, but if you're going somewhere nearby, you can park here for X dollars.

And so I kind of like that observation.

Um so those are the thoughts I have on it.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you.

Um, President.

Um, how much I know you're relatively early in your research, but wondering, are there multiple reasons why people are overbuilding, or is it just spaces that they can sell?

Uh what do you know?

Yeah, it's a great question.

I think it depends on the development.

I think there are parking is built for a lot of different reasons.

Um I think the problem I'm trying to solve is the one I see um at, you know, Leedsdale and Forest, which is a 400 unit building that is building 700 parking spaces, right?

And it's on a transit line, um, and it's on a future BRT line, right?

Like the there are, and this is why I said I think uh we need to maybe consider looking at this by context as opposed to by because that's suburban context, right?

As opposed to maybe by like uh one size fits all across the city.

Um and I don't know because I'm not an expert on that, but that's really the problem I'm trying to solve, and I think part of what we need to learn in additional research is like how are people using the parking that they're building?

Yeah, exactly.

And why when you need 400 in building 700?

Because it doesn't seem to me, especially in that location, that you're gonna sell 300 extra spaces.

So okay, yeah, thank you.

Yeah, that's the question of sure.

It's a totally fair question.

I do not know the answer to, but thanks for the flag.

We'll listen to it.

Thanks, Madam President.

Council Member Hines with Watson on Tech.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I just want to start by saying there should be safe non-car ways to get around our city, and as Vision Zero continues to uh get a higher body count.

Yes, that is callous.

Yes, that is the reality.

Um, people will continue to fear non-car adoption.

Uh you know, vision zero existed in 2008, I would be one of the Vision Zero statistics for 2008.

Um there are I wonder if there are discussions about the consistent push-pull between the city and its people and businesses, um, like whether we should have more protective bike lanes or fewer protected bike lanes, um, whether we should or how we should prioritize uh sidewalk installation.

Are they near areas of high development, near areas of high density, near areas of highest need, as far as you know, side sidewalk.

GES doesn't have sidewalks at all.

Um near high division zero areas.

Um, so you know, just as I'm thinking about this, got a lot of thoughts.

Um also uh as we have thought about the downtown area plan and the DDDA, um, I thought about it ideas of multi-use parking, like the Jennifer Cultural Center Garage, where it is a city-owned structure that could be used for businesses, people who live in Golden Triangle, people who are um going to uh to the uh museums and the cultural um district.

So maybe we could have you know, my thought about downtown is having a few cultural center garages around um the center city so that people park there and then making it easy for non-car access uh from those cultural center garages.

So we have you know them in strategic spots around downtown, then um uh then it might overcome some of the concerns that downtown residents have of uh being unable to access or or or people go to um who work downtown, um, also uh wayfinding.

Um I think there's a push-pull with wayfinding as well, because as you know, Councilmember Sawyer, um Cherry Creek parking garages are half empty all the time.

Um, and uh yet the uh street parking on Cherry Creek is full all the time, and uh and so there are a few challenges there.

Um look at parking structures versus street.

Um, one street parking, which is city owned, is almost always cheaper than garage parking, which is usually privately owned.

Um, another is that people like to say uh to see their parked car, um, and they don't get to see it in a printing garage, so it's on the third or fourth, fifth floor uh story, they don't know that it's there, and there's some comfort of knowing it's right there on the street.

Um, so a bunch of things about you know, economics, about um access, just the feel, I know it's right there versus um hidden somewhere, and um uh see what was the last thing I was gonna say.

Um, oh, and then also as we're thinking about things, there have been challenges uh as we think about TDM.

Are there have been challenges in the past to developers um in Cherry Creek and downtown?

Um building things uh with reduced parking requirements, it didn't really matter now, but in the past they've been building things with reduced parking requirements in exchange for um the promise of implementing something that wasn't actually implemented, like um car share spaces that were not actually installed, or bicycle parking that did not actually materialize.

And once the building was built, it isn't as if they could.

What do you want from us?

The buildings built, you said I could um take occupancy and I don't have these things.

So you can make this do it on the building, which obviously we're not going to.

So there have been some promises made, not promises kept with no accountability.

So there's a bunch of I've I've got a lot of thoughts about it, and I thank you for also putting a lot of thought into it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Watson.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Sawyer and your team.

I see Matt sitting there in his funky suit.

So I'm sure you did some work on this as well.

Looking good.

Um thank you, Livy and team, uh, for parking minimums work that you all did.

I mean, that was um a heavy lift, and I appreciate that.

My first question um is on is there has there been, I know this is new and you all haven't done all the research, but the cost per unit, especially in affordable units um for the excess parking, um, how many possible additional homes?

And if that hasn't been done, uh that may be a good um piece to have um uh um uh understood um that this uh cost per unit for parking for affordable housing, that parking and most likely sticking a spot for an actual resident.

Um so would be curious on some of that stuff as research is being done.

Um there's been a and I was trying to find it while I was waiting um for in the queue, and uh the term that some municipalities have used, they use different terms, and I called it park once.

Um, and it is where for TDM and for development of structures, let's say like around 38th and Blake, where every parking um uh garage under all of those buildings that were that were built has been empty for since 2018, none are used.

Um, and we organized um in community for um Black Shirt and others to come up with a creative response for parking because they don't have parking out front.

Catbird doesn't have parking, but there was nothing in the requirements when they were building as far as TDM with the 38th Street overlay um not requiring parking.

There wasn't like a park once idea, like Council Member Heinz was saying that they all share one parking structure so that not everyone else has to build these expensive parking structures that are now all for the most part are empty.

So I'm I'm curious how does that would that fit in?

And that'll be a question I'll I would look to see if there is a less if there is a part of this process that integrate what I'm calling a park once requirement for TDM that you develop, but you coordinate the appropriate development across all of the the buildings that are being built, and not every one developer has to is responsible for all the parking for their residents, etc.

I'm very curious to learn more um and to engage more with you on some of this.

Yeah, thanks.

I will tell you um the perfect example of what you're talking about is Ninth and Colorado.

I was gonna say that because I always park in that parking garage.

You can't.

You and everybody else, that's the point.

You can't eat at any of the fantastic restaurants there.

It is the perfect example, but it was not, I don't believe, incentivized by the city.

Uh, was it?

I don't know.

It's an urban renewal area, so they're doing just fine.

Okay, yeah.

Well, I'd say incentivized, I mean it wasn't a targeted expectation.

It was it was?

Yes, during those conversations, during those development conversations like back in 2011, 12, 13, 1415.

Um, that was part of the expectation was that they would keep the parking structure there.

Um, parking structures are incredibly expensive to build.

That I don't know what the value of that parking structure is, but when the VA property was sold, they have a parking structure attached to it, and I heard the number of 50 million dollars kicked around for the value of the parking structure itself.

So um there are there's there's a lot of value that comes with parking structures like that.

I think the challenge comes in operationalizing how that works, right?

For something like um Ninth and Colorado, that's a master developer.

And so the insurance, there's only one insurance right, you know, they have full control of kind of what is going on there.

Um I think the challenge for some place like Cherry Creek, for example, right?

If there were to become a parcel of land available where they could build one giant parking garage that everyone who wants to come to Cherry Creek could park in and then walk to you know everywhere where else the problem is that that doesn't work particularly well when you start looking at the operational stuff like insurance, like maintenance costs, like right.

There's just a lot of it gets real hairy real fast when you're talking about multiple owners for something like that, um, and that's why it hasn't taken off particularly well.

Um, so there are other cities that do stuff like that.

Um, I think that I'm not sure that we can attack that challenge with what we're looking at doing here under the TDM ordinance, but I think it's a really good point.

Well, thank you so much.

And I think in Colorado was in my brain ideas, so I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr.

Um, so when we were doing the parking minimums, um, I have two areas of town that are super challenging, um, Highland and Sunnyside, and um, to council member Cashman's point when you said why would anyone overpark?

I have a station stop off of um, it goes to Union Station, and you to get to that station stop, you have to cross over this bridge, and we should take a walk.

It's really scary.

Like, I can't walk there at night as a woman by myself.

I really can't.

I can't go over the 41st and Fox Bridge.

I did.

I used to ride my bike, um, and I got catcalled.

I got um ran down.

Like literally, these dudes were in there doing drugs, and I literally had to call my husband crying because I was so scared.

And so women in the Zia apartment building don't use that station at all, like at all.

It's like one of the most underutilized station stops that we have, and it's one stop from union station.

Um, so they I wish they would have overparked.

I've actually had to do rezonings in that whole entire area on um Inca, uh, with um uh like a good neighbor agreement to overpark because there's not enough parking over there, and so Dave Burton from Dotty, I don't think he's here, knows that how people leave actually sticky notes on each other and have gotten fights in that neighborhood over parking, and like literally like don't park in my spot, um, gonna jack you up and like literally like crazy sticky notes stuff that is going on in that area, and then the other area, and it's really hard to get out because you can't head east.

You're landlocked because you have 38th Avenue and you have I-70 on one side, and the only street that goes out is LaPan.

It literally is the only one that goes through.

Um, the other area that's landlocked is Highland, and it's also landlocked.

There's 38th Avenue, and then there's 20th Street that is landlocked, and there are when we rezoned in 2010, um, we put five story zoning down all in the lower part of Highland, and there's all these five-story buildings that have come gone up down there, and like gentrification mass gentrification and redevelopment, and there is it's really awful.

And we just did a uh um a curbside access plan, so like residential parking permits, they just went up and I'm getting tons of complaints from businesses and tons of complaints.

So I asked Dottie and CPD to have a meeting together when we were going over the parking minimums because I felt like this needed to be a paired conversation, like they should do a tiger team um back on this one thing where you bring in all of the agencies that need to work on this, um, because I think site specific is actually a really good thing.

The hard thing is also I don't have any TDMs over in Northwest Denver.

I don't have like I think you all have like I think you serve on a board, Councilmember Sawyer.

I think Councilmember Cashman, you serve on board.

I think Council Pro Temer Merrill Campbell, I don't have anything like that in Northwest Denver.

Nothing.

There's no interesting.

And there's nothing.

I think I'm asking me then, do they?

No.

So we're just going to see Transportation Management Associations.

Yes.

There's no transportation management association for islands or that part of uh of town.

West Corridor TMA follows the light rails, and it's a little bit north of Colfax, I think that's it.

So my entire council district does not have anything.

Nothing.

And so we don't have a board working on this.

We don't have, and I asked them, and the ones that have fall under this ordinance, when did they do an audit?

They've done an audit, but they don't have anyone to follow through on it.

They don't have any of the information.

There's no teeth to it.

So I have major issues with with um our.

I was like, why do we even have a transportation demand ordinance if we can't follow through with it?

At least in my council district, I don't have literally nothing.

So and even when I represented um part of West Colfax, it's it doesn't go all the way, it stops at 14th.

It doesn't go all the way to Colfax.

So even West Colfax is not in that area.

Um so I think that we should have if we're gonna have what are they called again, transportation demand.

We should have those everywhere if we're gonna have an ordinance, um, because what good is it if we don't have those anywhere if we they because they would be the ones helping follow through on your ordinances, so there's not like for like all over the city.

Yeah, do you want to read to that a little bit?

Because I I'm I I hear you.

I had no idea you didn't have a TMA over by you, but I'm gonna push back a little bit because Dottie is the one who administers the TDM ordinance, not transportation management associations.

So yeah, they're transportation managements.

I think there's five or six in the city.

Um they are organizations like transportation solutions, downtown Denver Partnership, Northeast Transportation Connections, and they do a lot of on the ground transportation work in their communities, including supporting with the TDM administration.

Um there in areas where we don't have uh TMA, we rely on uh Dr.

Cog and their Way to Go program to help supplement those um areas where there's not one of those organizations.

Yeah, and Dr.

Cog, I've never met with Dr.

Cog about anything on Way to Go.

And I've been here since 2013.

So I I think that's great.

That's a resource, but Dr.

Cog, as we know, is like huge county.

Um, so it's not just Denver.

So I think that this needs to definitely be explored.

I my staff has lots of information.

We get tons of complaints on this.

Um I was hard pressed to vote yes.

I ended up voting yes.

Um, but there were there are parts of my council district that are definitely gonna suffer because of that ordinance.

Like when we think of I I also thought about um it's not in my council district, but it's right across the Fox Island.

They don't like to call it Fox Island anymore, but they have a trip count on there.

So how does that even help?

Because you can't you can literally have only certain amount of development until a bridge is built, and the bridge has to be built in my council district onto the sunny side side, and we have some funding for it, but we don't really have funding for it.

We don't know when it's gonna come up, kind of know when it's gonna come up, and I have to a couple businesses are gonna lose their businesses that have historically been there for a really long time on the eastern parts of sunny side because of that bridge.

So I have lots of thoughts on this.

That's we could take it offline and talk.

I would love it.

Yeah, I would love it.

Okay.

I just wanna ask.

I know Councilmember Flynn, you have been the city council representative on Dr.

Cog for as long as I've been here.

I do.

Um, do you have any thoughts on that?

A lot of hand.

Okay.

Okay, I'd get back to you if you want.

Yeah, I would love to look into that.

So specify for me what exactly you're looking for.

What's it called?

It's the way to go program, the way to go program.

Yeah.

Yeah, the old car pool program.

Yeah.

Oh, it's a carpool program.

It's not anymore.

Sorry, but they're much broader than that.

Yeah.

If you could bring information back to council districts that don't have any transportation management, I'll think right those.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Transportation solutions covers part of your district.

Does it?

Okay.

So thank you.

Um, we'll come see you back and look look forward to working on this.

Awesome, yeah.

Yeah, thanks.

Awesome.

Like, you're gonna hear a lot from me today.

Alright, next step, we have um property tax rebate program policy proposal by council members Sawyer and Gummar.

Council Member Gilmer, you want to go first?

Sure.

Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer.

Um, thank you, Council President.

Uh I was just looking back when we started the conversation about updating uh this ordinance, and it was November 14th, 2023.

And so uh it has taken a bit for us to get here before you to share with you some uh I think updates that will expand uh the accessibility of the property tax rebate program to more people in the city and county of Denver and a few other changes that we'd love to hear from all of you uh your opinion about and get your feedback on it.

And so I'll go ahead and turn over to councilwoman Sawyer and uh thank Matt sincerely for all of his leadership leadership and research and um working with uh Department of Finance and host and everybody else, and so uh thank you for all the work.

Yeah, well, thank you.

Really appreciate it.

I'm gonna let Matt present because this is his black belt project.

Um, but first I want to say a huge thank you to Melissa and Ian.

They have been extraordinary in supporting us with information and thoughts and ideas and all the things.

Um, so you guys may recall this is the second this is phase two of a two-phase process.

Phase one, um, we did last year, and it was uh a vote of council to move to change the ordinance to move our property tax rebate program from DHS where it was originally administered to host, and um so we did that last year, and then phase two has been to really see how like what potential tweaks we could make to make it um more useful to make sure that all of those dollars are getting out the door historically.

They have not all gotten out the door annually, et cetera.

So this is a program that's funded out of the general fund.

Um I would love to be able to find a different way to fund it that um provides more stability, but at this point, that unfortunately is not um the way it goes.

I do want to give a huge shout out to the Department of Finance and Mayor's Office.

Um, they worked with us um and host to look at the numbers for next year.

Um, we're sort of in this weird transition year phase, right?

Um, where hosts just took over administration of it, and so some of the numbers you're gonna see in Matt will talk about this are are solid, and but there's not like historic data over time because hosts just started administering it this year.

Um, so they help to make sure that um it's funded, it's funded well, it is solid for the next year so that we can really um give hosts the opportunity to get that data and um and see how things are working and how we can even uh get more of it out the door.

So the other thing I want to say before Matt starts is this is gonna get real crazy because the city works on a calendar year annual budget, the state works on a July 1st to June 30th calendar budget.

The property tax program itself runs in arrears a year behind from May 1st to April 30th.

So good luck.

With that, I'm gonna turn it over to Matt.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Matt Walter, senior counseling for district five, but we'll just jump right into it.

So starting with our agenda, as you can see here, we'll just get through some background, some potential changes, the budget, and then next steps.

So our purpose today to provide an update on the program since it was transferred from DHS to host uh for 2025 and to discuss some proposed ordinance changes and budget needs.

So, quick background.

The Denver property tax relief program provides a partial refund of property taxes paid or the equivalent in rent to qualifying Denver residents, and then we just have some numbers here.

Uh, eligible applicants receive a payment of at least 372 dollars.

The average refund for the 2024 to 2025 program year was 1,148 dollars.

Uh the average refund to date for the current program year, so 2025, that's May of 2025 through current, is about it's still close there, it's about 1200.

Just some quick background on some state programs.

There is the property tax exemption for senior citizens.

That's for folks age 65 and older.

That's 50% of the first $200,000 of actual value of the qualified applicants' primary residence gets exempted from their property tax.

They must be owner occupied for 10 consecutive years, which is an important thing to remember because our program does not have that requirement, right?

The property tax deferral program allows senior citizens, active military, and those who exceed the 4% tax growth cap to access an interest-bearing loan to defer partial payment of their property tax, so long as they keep enrolling and they stay eligible.

So here's some background from the previous years when it was administered by DHS.

You'll see here from 2020 to 2024, the number of applications just keep increasing, and the amount of rebates paid there are on the right.

You might notice that those numbers don't line up all the time.

Some reasons for that is that the application was either incomplete, the address was already claimed for a rebate, the address was not in the city and county of Denver.

Uh, their AMI level did not meet the eligibility threshold, or they have already received the rebate for that program year.

So here's some additional information.

Hosts launched the new online application on May 1st, which has been incredible for people to take advantage of.

They've received 3,018 applications from this May through October.

Um it's still open, obviously.

We'll run until April 30th of 2026.

1,047 of those applications have already been processed and approved, which is fantastic.

This time around, there was a little bit different focus on outreach.

They've contracted with two local nonprofit providers.

They did a competitive procurement process for that.

They've conducted several outreach events on site to assist residents with applying.

I know that they've been kind enough to come out to District 5 a couple of times as well.

People really enjoy taking advantage of that in-person filing option.

They also have a call center to assist people with applying over the phone.

So that's that's been a great advantage as well.

They've been great at answering recalls from residents who call the previous existing property tax refund support number as well.

So let's just look at the current eligibility criteria.

Right now, the program serves homeowners with disabilities, homeowners who are 65 and older, homeowners with children, and all of those three types of eligibility have to meet a 60% or less of area median income.

Um, for the renters, you have renters with disabilities and renters who are 65 and older.

And it has a split AMI that's 25% of AMI for single renters and 30% for two renters.

Uh other key features of the program, you have to pay your tax in full for the previous year.

This also means that people aren't eligible if they live in properties that are exempt from local property taxes.

Social Security benefits are not counted as income for the purpose of eligibility, but the state's adult financial program benefits do count.

The program year runs, and as we discussed, from May 1st through April 30th, the applications and benefits relate to the previous year.

For example, applications received May 1st, 2023 through April 30th, 2024 are actually for calendar year 2022.

So this is why you got the warning that the dates get kind of confusing.

Here are where we landed with proposed changes to the eligibility criteria.

First off, we'll just start at the top with those those three homeowner categories.

You'll see that change from 65 down to 62.

This is to align with the state and federal government's definition of what an older adult is, as well as a change to 80% of area median income, so increasing that threshold a little bit.

You'll see a big new category there, homeowners who are a surviving spouse non-remarried.

This came out of a lot of pure city research I did when I was looking at other cities that have some kind of similar benefit for surviving spouses because normally that also means they're going through a pretty significant uh economic change in their lives, financial disturbance.

And so we thought that'd be great to add here as one of our potential eligibility groups.

And then we'll have here renters with disabilities and renters again lowering that threshold from down from 65 to 62, also just cleaning up the weird 25% versus 30% for single or more to just 30% across the board.

Now there's an important topic of discussion that as we've come through all of these conversations over the last year is should renters be phased out of the property tax relief program.

And there is a hypothetical date there of 2030.

This question is important because this program is, as far as we're really aware, the only um displacement tool that we have for homeowners in the city and county.

Trua was not what it was once upon a time.

But I think because you'll see here in a moment that there's still some significant use for folks who are renters, that it's a discussion that we would like to get more feedback here today.

Breakdown of the beneficiaries.

So if you look at that first column, that's previous program years administered by DHS.

It's about 60% renters, 40% homeowners.

The most utilized eligibility category is 65 plus disability as the second highest.

Now, these numbers were just recently updated by host uh for the 2025 program year.

Currently, we're at about 57% renters and 43% homeowners.

It's interesting to see that uptick on the homeowner side.

Um that's approved.

For the total applications, we're still looking at about the same.

And then the most used categories are still 65 and older, followed by disability.

And then lastly, let's talk about the budget needs.

So the program has been budgeted at 4.9 million for fiscal year 2026.

This was done based off of host projections.

It should be sufficient to meet the needs of the program for the calendar year.

Again, really, it we didn't want to go too far with too many changes, considering um it's still only at 4.9 million, and the utilization numbers have been upticking over time.

Uh, but we think that this strikes a nice balance between the types of eligibility, expanding eligibility and access while also maintaining that budget number.

In previous years, correct me if I'm wrong, it was budgeted at budgeted six million for a number of years.

Um, during the migrant crisis, we took 1.5 million.

We agreed as council to remove 1.5 million from that and put it towards the microcrisis, um, which is great.

The reason why we could do that comfortably is because when this program lived within DHS, uh, the Department of Finance and the program was initially set up.

Councilman Gilmore, I'm gonna let you speak a little bit more on this, but um, there was some concern that it would run out of money and every year, and so um the budget, the outreach budget for the entire city of Denver was I wanna say 700.

It might have been seven thousand dollars.

Might have been seven thousand.

Do you want to just speak about that a little bit?

Sure.

Yeah, I can thank you, councilman for your.

Yeah, it was um when Councilman Kineach and I had looked at this ordinance um way back when, uh, because we knew that there was a need uh to support families and especially families with children, and so we made that big change, but there were not the marketing dollars available, and so we tried to kind of um limp along uh and get along on it with putting notices in folks' property tax um assessments and get information out that way.

But we know that you only can reach so many people that way, and uh we wanted to serve more individuals, but keeping it very conservative through policy, uh, we were never able to expend all of the money allocated to it.

And that has always been the goal is that we expend it out all out on an annual basis, and wouldn't it be amazing if we did such a great job that mid-year there might need to be a supplemental because we are doing so well at supporting, especially um, you know, well, it's homeowners and renters in our family uh to have stability around their housing, and we know that that uh is preventative around involuntary displacement and gentrification, and so that was um the ultimate idea, and so hopefully with some of these changes um uh and you know better marketing, we can totally expend those dollars.

Thank you.

So just some next steps.

Uh, obviously, we're here today, November 10th.

Um, this will go through a council process.

I believe uh we are looking at a February committee date, and then that should give the host team sufficient time to implement any of the changes and uh get it ready for the next program year of May 1st um 2026.

Any questions?

We have Councilmember Albi there's in the queue.

Um great, thank you.

I love this.

Thank you for those changes.

Um, I appreciate that.

One of my questions where I have a little bit confused, um, is just the my friend Ben app, that also integrates with this program, correct?

I don't believe it does.

I don't know.

Melissa or Ian, do you guys know?

Maybe it flags that you can apply to the program.

Um, I'm a program officer with host.

Um I know that this program's listed in My Friend Ben, just like most host programs that provide direct cash assistance.

So, but I don't know that there's any formal partnership, more so that if people are using MyFriend Ben to look for this, they will be listed.

There's something else.

Yes.

Okay.

You can't apply through My Friend Ben, but you can apply online through Denver's Denvergov.org.

But it will flag to them you could be eligible for this program.

And it might link to our website, I can make sure that's the case.

Yeah, that would be great.

Um, my only concern that came up while reading the slides is the 10-year requirement, and I particularly think of the state.

That's not here.

Okay.

So is there any requirement then for the city?

So you could just move in today and you can qualify for this rebate.

Yes, but remember it's an arrears and you have to be fully paid.

So um, like if you moved in today, two years from now, you could apply for the property tax rebate.

Okay for this year.

Okay, I'll have to keep thinking about that.

I told you, good luck.

Thank you, committee chair.

That was my own question.

Councilmember Liz.

Um, thank you.

Two questions.

Of the um, of the I think you said six million that was originally allocated to this year of a year and now the 4.9.

Um, what was the rollover or the leftover of the program for 2024?

And maybe what's the projections for 2025?

We don't know.

I got it.

We don't see actuals.

Okay.

Lovely.

I love it here.

Um, the second question I had for you, can you talk to me a bit more about what you all are thinking in terms of the elimination of the renters?

Like, is there another program that they might be able to access?

That's the first part.

And then the second piece of the question is can the owner as well as the renter apply for the program, or just is it one or the other?

It's one or the other, Melissa.

Do you want to or Ian, do you want to take one?

Tag, who's it?

Hi, good afternoon.

Uh Melissa Tati, I'm the director of stability and prevention with host.

Um, so it is one or the other, uh, because we do it based by uh address.

Okay, yeah.

And then your first question was about renters and what other programs would they access.

Yeah, I think I'll and I'll let you speak to it more.

But I think the idea is that back when the original changes to this program went into place, True was funded at maybe three million dollars.

So now that we're in a place where um trua is uh funded at a higher level, is that is that the place so that we're not having people go to multiple programs to access different resources.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Yeah, and I think that this is really a hard call that councilwoman Gilmore and I, I'm gonna speak for you, but uh don't want to make without you guys.

Yeah.

All of kind of the research and conversation that we have had and where we have come to is that given that Trua has been expanded, et cetera, this is truly our single homeowner gentrification and displacement fighting tool.

Um with that said, we think it would be better to phase out renters over time.

Um that is a really hard call because there will be impacts to that.

And so that's why we didn't want to um do anything or propose anything without a conversation with you guys first.

And then my final question is there a max refund?

Like, is there a cap?

There I there's a cap, but I don't remember what it is.

Ian, do you remember what it is?

Formula, um yes, it's uh at least for our current programming, it's eighteen hundred dollars for homeowners.

Yeah, and a thousand dollars for renters.

Okay, um, as long as the amount they paid in property taxes or their annualized rent does not exceed that amount, then we would only pay up to what they actually paid in property taxes or what they actually paid in rent.

Okay, now this is just a programmatic question because I it's new to me.

So in order for you all to determine what that is, are you as a renter?

If I apply for the program and I'm paying my rent to my landlord, am I asking my landlord for their tax information in order to be able to assess what that number is for you all?

Um so if you're a renter household, um we don't ask the renter to provide that uh independently or agencies can look up the owner's property record.

But we will some do provide it.

Um but then the renters also expected to provide uh a ledger or statement to show us what they've been doing.

Thanks for your time.

I'm dead.

Thank you, um thank you for bringing this forward.

This is really interesting.

Um I used to have been asked a lot about kind of about the tax uh property tax rebates and and what that looks like.

The 10 years, um, there are folks that I have talked to within the district that um have basically they were hesitant to just even move because they were getting the tax rebate.

And so thinking about going from a single family home to like a condo or to a smaller space and being able to downsize, I just appreciate that the 10 years isn't in there because I think that was really um making it was it was a decision-making point for a lot of folks.

I will just clarify for you that is a state requirement for the state property tax rebate.

And that like my mom's 80, yeah, and she hasn't lived in her unit for 10 years, so she's not be able to take advantage of it yet.

Like it's just it's dumb, but that is not our, yeah, it's not our law.

Um the uh what is the expected population that would be eligible, and how much do you think that this serves of that population?

Is this serving 10%, 50%?

I'm phoning a friend, so know what the I'm just curious.

That's a great question.

So um, because this is our first year administering the program, a lot of what we're trying to do is collect data because we don't know.

What we think is happening is there's a lot of overlap.

So folks who are 65 plus or 62 plus, um, could potentially also be some of the folks that are people with disabilities, same with surviving spouse.

And so until we have a little bit more time to like piece apart the data um that we're collecting through applications and surveys and things.

Um, I don't have a super clear answer of that.

I will say we're continuing to do more outreach and making sure that we're trying to get the word out because we know we're not reaching everyone who's eligible.

Um, so that's always something that we're trying to improve upon.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Uh that answered all my other questions have been answered.

Thank you.

One last question I have.

Do you do that?

I I think they put it in the property taxes, right?

Like when you get it, you could they that's how they're advertising it.

And then for the council members who have a senior luncheon or a senior, like the Hiawatha Davis.

Thank you.

Do you add do you table for that?

Do you see you?

It there's there are some resources, yeah.

There are resources, but I'm not sure if that one is, and if not, make sure it happens.

Yeah, that's great, thank you.

Because we used to have one in Northwest Denver Senior Resource Lunch, and then it just kind of faded away.

Um, but that would be, and I know that HRCP used to have one, and they don't have one anymore either.

Um, so I always connect all my people to Olga, I think her name is in HRCP.

And I know that I've gone out and I've actually had to have people fill out the forms because it's not intuitive for people, and a lot of times what happens is you have to have a scanner if you want to fill it out digitally.

I don't know if that's still the case or if it's a PDF online.

It's online now.

Okay.

Um, but you still can't fill it out on your phone, I don't think.

I think you have to have your computer right.

Um you can cancel it out on the mobile device.

It's not super recommended.

Um, we know that people have problems on mobile devices, and it also depends on what browser they're using.

Um, the application is set up though, that uh you can submit the application without any file uploads, and then there are ways that they can be uh mail, dropped off in person, um, emailed, or we can arrange for someone to go pick them up.

Um so there's no like scanning required, just knowing the population using this application.

Awesome.

Um, yeah, I think that's I used to put that in my in my newsletter as it's called evergreen content.

So I would put it um, I just only do it on the years that it's assessed because it's hit so because because of the complicated people are like, wait, when am I supposed to apply for this?

How am I supposed to apply for this?

What do I do?

And then they don't understand that you have to pay all of it up front, and then you get the money back, which is a problem a lot of times people don't always have the money to pay it up front.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, thank you all.

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

Councilwoman Gonzalez, could they just say um wait?

Sorry, really quickly.

Just on that point, Council President Sandoval, you're right.

I think the challenge is that Tabor requires that.

Yeah.

So there are right.

It's like there are just some really complicated things about property tax, and when you get into state law that uh we've tried to work around as best we can, but that's it's it's a real challenge.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Oh, yeah, I was just gonna ask.

So when with the com as the conversation progresses around renters, um, you know, one of the things that we did at the state was we did the the EREP program.

Gosh, I'm forgetting what it stands for right now.

But basically, it was where the landlords or the property owner could apply for rental assistance on behalf of the renter.

And why I'm thinking about that is because is there a mechanism where both can see relief, I guess, when it comes to so like that helped relieve landlord landlords in their, you know, if a renter wasn't able to pay, um, it helped them relieve in that moment, and so with the property tax piece, if the property owner is able to apply for it, and the could the renter still see a benefit to them getting relief on their property taxes, like as far as because that's how they pay, they don't pay actual property taxes, right?

They're paying it through their rent.

And so if they don't know that a landlord, like I guess kind of going to what council Lewis is saying is like if they don't know if a landlord is applied for this, or the property owner has applied for it, they're getting some help there, but then they're still reaping the benefits of you know the the rent that they're getting, and I don't know what the situation is every situation could be different.

So I just don't know if there's anything possible to try to help it help both parties, I guess.

I'm asking you to solve it.

Yeah, no, I will just say it that's part of why I think we have said that we think it's more appropriate for this to be a tool for homeowners and not a tool for renters.

Back when this was written the first time, we think it was like the early 80s, um, when there was no temporary rent and mutility assistance or anything like that.

So there's some weird old language that we're cleaning up in this thing too as we bring it through to you guys, but um but that is part of the challenge of why we think it would be better for us to focus this these dollars and this resource solely on homeowners, but I don't know.

Do you guys have anything to add?

I don't know if I understood the question totally, but um uh but maybe the the point to make too is that the the rebates tied to like an eligible dwelling unit.

So I don't know that a landlord could still apply on behalf of a renter, um, but their rebate is tied to the renter's address.

Um so in my mind, the rebate would still be always going to the tenant, but maybe that didn't address your question at all.

I guess I was trying to say is is there a way to have benefit for both where where you see because we don't we don't govern how much somebody can charge for rent, right?

In our city and our state, there are some that do.

Um, but because we don't, so a landlord could apply for property tax yeah, assistance.

And then that will help benefit them financially.

We meanwhile, the rent for the renter could go up, could stay the same, even though they may not need that amount and they still are making a profit, they still are able to pay the mortgage for that property or whatever it is, right?

That they need to use that money for it, their income, whatever it is.

And I get it, like that's also somewhat of a business decision, but it also could then have a negative impact for that rent or if they're struggling to pay their rent to begin with, then they're still relying on the resources that we have that are nowhere near the amount that we need, right, to provide assistance to people for rent.

I guess it's it's the that's a lot of like it's a lot of layers.

And so I don't know that there's necessarily an answer, but I'm just interested to to see if there is any way to apply some kind of benefit for both parties in some way.

So we don't, I don't we don't have to have an answer today, and we can like work on it going forward, but or see if there's anything that can be done, but yeah, we're gonna we can talk more about this offline, but I um I guess the point that comes to mind is that uh the landlord would only be able to apply for rebate on their own primary residential property.

So I don't see like I don't know that um the renter will always be the one receiving the cash rebate.

It will never go to the landlord unless uh property owners applying on their own primary residence.

Um, is that the property owner is applying, they're getting a rebate or they're getting assistance with their property tax, and but the renter is either paying the same amount of rent or a landlord could decide to raise their rent to get more again.

That's where it comes into play is like a business decision, but can have a negative impact on that renter if they're not able to make their rent, which then now they're coming knocking our door our door and asking for rental assistance.

So it's just like another layer that if we could try to say, okay, property owner, if you're if you are leasing your property, if you're renting it out, then how does then that impact your renter if you're applying for these property taxes?

If anything, could it just stay the same?

Could you not raise your rent kind of a thing?

But I know that's a whole other conversation.

No, actually I really appreciate that question because I think it's a question for John and Brylon, and it is um I think what you're asking, and I'm gonna say it say it back to you, is um, is it possible for our ordinance that we are writing to require a landlord who is um obtaining this rebate to either to pass that along to the renter in some way?

Yes, thank you.

You're welcome.

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't, I'm not gonna that's the right lawyer.

So we'll send an email to them after this and ask, but that's what you're asking, right?

I think that yeah, because what you're I think what I hear you saying is that you do not want um a property owner landlord to be able to take advantage of this and not share it with the renter that they're also getting rent from.

Correct.

Right.

We and that's why I said in the beginning we agree with you, and that's why we sort of our recommendation was just to remove renters altogether.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

President.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

All right, next steps.

So this one is coming in committee.

February third.

Okay.

Great job, man.

The third specifically.

So February 3rd, any feedback we have to give you, we should give before then.

Okay, thank you.

Awesome.

All right, thank you, Councilmembers.

I'll see you at 3 30.

This is where.