Denver Governance Committee Meeting - February 17, 2026: Permitting Tool Contract and State Legislative Briefing
Denver Governance Committee Meeting - February 17, 2026: Permitting Tool Contract and State Legislative Briefing
On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, the Denver City Council Governance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee met to consider an action item on a new permitting technology contract and a briefing on state legislative matters. The committee approved the contract for a guided intake and plan review tool to proceed to full council, and discussed multiple bills including the Home Act (HB 1001), transit investment areas, data privacy, and surveillance legislation.
Action Item: Permitting Tool Contract
- The committee heard a presentation from Robert Peak (Denver Permitting Office) and Anna Weber (Technology Services) on a proposed contract with Comply AI (d.b.a. SIV Check) for a digital platform that automates pre-checks on permit applications. The total contract is $4.6 million for three modules over five years, but only Module 1 (intake review for all permit types) is currently funded at $1.05 million using a combination of grant and capital funds. Modules 2 and 3 (code compliance for single-family and small commercial) are contingent on success and future funding.
- The tool aims to reduce the average 1.6 intake review cycles (currently 38% of applications accepted on first round) to near 80% first-round acceptance, and cut staff review time from 10 minutes per application by at least half. The city averages 1,000 permit applications per month. Other cities using similar tools report up to 70% reduction in reviewer time and 99% alignment with reviewers.
- Committee members asked about digital-only submission (paper no longer accepted), user profiles (no profiles stored), and the importance of including Module 2 for single-family projects. The presenters confirmed that Module 1 already covers single-family and duplex projects, and they will prioritize checklist requirements for those.
State Legislative Briefing
- The committee reviewed multiple bills tracked by the city's lobbying team (Policy Matters) and agency experts. Official city positions require agreement among the mayor's office, agencies, and council. Many bills are in early stages with positions still being formed.
- HB 1001 (Home Act): Originally known as YIGBY, this bill requires local governments to allow residential development on properties owned by certain nonprofits, school districts, housing authorities, etc. The city is in an "amend" position, seeking clarifications on definitions, property size, and preemption issues. Concerns about preempting local land use authority were raised. Council members noted the bill is broader than last year, potentially including many 501(c)(3) organizations.
- HB 1065 (Transit Investment Area Act): Creates tax increment financing for transit areas. City is in an "amend" position with six specific amendments, including limiting parking funding and requiring transit-supportive zoning.
- HB 1037 (Ban Government Purchase of Personal Data): Prohibits law enforcement and other agencies from buying personal data from third parties. The committee is split (5 oppose, 5 amend, 1 other) with concerns that it would cripple investigative tools like LeadsOnline used for catalytic converter and scrap metal enforcement (both city ordinances). DPD reported that these tools were used in nearly 20% of all 2025 arrests and 50% of investigative cases. Council members noted difficulty in amending the bill to preserve critical functions.
- SB 70 (PEEPS Act) and SB 71 (SAFE Act): Both regulate surveillance technologies. SB 70 targets license plate readers, requiring warrants and limiting data retention to 4 days (currently 30 days in Denver). SB 71 is broader. Feedback from agencies is still pending; committee will receive requests for input this week.
- HB 1005 (Worker Protection Collective Bargaining): 11 council members support this bill (amends Labor Peace Act). The mayor's office is monitoring; council will communicate support separately as a body, not as an official city position.
- SB 42 (Revenue Classification TABOR): Under review, no recommendation yet.
- SB 72 (Vision Zero Penalties): Supported by DOTI but raises concerns about increased penalties. Council is split, no consensus yet.
- Budget Update: The state Joint Budget Committee is through supplemental process; major focus on Medicaid provider rate cuts and county centralization of human services. The city successfully advocated to table HICPUF's regionalization plan in favor of a county-driven approach, and also tabled cost shifts for the guardianship assistance program.
Key Outcomes
- Action Item Approved: The committee moved to approve the permitting tool contract (motion by Councilmember Cash, second by Council President Sandoval) for full council consideration scheduled for February 23, 2026. No roll call was taken; the item will proceed to the full council.
- Legislative Positions: The committee took no final votes on bill positions. Council members are asked to update their preferences in the online tracker, especially on HB 1037 (data privacy) where the committee is split. The next governance committee meeting is March 17, 2026, by which time some bills will have advanced.
- Next Steps for HB 1001 and HB 1065: The city will pursue amendments as outlined by Community Planning and Development. For HB 1037, the mayor's office will continue discussions with agencies to see if an amendable path exists, but challenges are significant.
- Surveillance Bills (SB 70, SB 71): Agency feedback will be gathered this week and shared with council for formal input.
Meeting Transcript
Welcome back to this monthly meeting of the governance and intergovernmental relations committee of Denver City Council. Thanks for joining us for the discussion. The Governance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee starts now. Alright, we are on air. Good morning, everyone. It is Tuesday, February 17th, 2026. I'm wearing my red because it's the start of the year of the fire horse, which I'm very, very here for at this moment. I'm Amanda Sawyer. I have the honor of representing the residents of District 5 and also chairing our governance committee. We have an action item and a briefing today. So before we get started, why don't we do a round of introductions? I don't see any council members online. So we'll start to my left with Council Member Watson. Uh good morning, Darrell Watson, fine District 9. Good morning, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4. And good morning, Paul Cash from South Denver District 6. Morning, Chantal Lewis, district 8. Good morning, Sedana Gonzalez, one of your council members at large. Fantastic. Well, before we get to our state-ledge briefing, we have one action item contract from Tech Services. So do you guys want to introduce yourselves and take it away? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. I'm Robert Peak with our Denver permitting office. And I am Anna Weber with Technology Services. Perfect. All right. Let's all get started. Excellent. Well, thank you all for the opportunity to present to you today about this exciting opportunity we have in the city and county in Denver that the Denver Permanent Office and Technology Services is partnering on. And let me get into it. So the uh purpose of today's meeting is to provide information on a guided intake and plan review tool to help our customers get through our permitting process. We'll provide an overview of the tool, provide the rationale behind why we want to do this, how we plan to measure success. It's critical that we uh that we measure the success of this, um, talk about the user experience uh rollout and finally uh talk through the contracting, budgeting and funding details with you all and save time for for any questions that you might have. So I want to take a step back and just talk about why this matters. Um it's critically important for us uh at the city, the number permitting office to create a smooth, efficient permitting process for our customers. We've heard for years now that um there are permitting delays, which could lead to frustration, uh, ongoing costs for our customers, and we're working to solve that. So, this is one of kind of many initiatives that we have in place, but we see this as absolutely critical to help support our customers throughout the process. Um process can be slow and inconsistent at time. Um, there's limited scalability. Um I always say we don't control the spigot, so we don't um when suddenly there's a swell of applications that come in. Uh, we oftentimes can't react fast enough, and that all leads to a frustration. But there are many opportunities in front of us to have a faster, more predictable approval process, um, provide more consistency and transparency in the process too. That's something we really hear about from our customers. They just don't know what to submit. Um tell tell me what you need. Um, so we're working to solve for that. And this supports all of our modernization goals. Uh, we really need to meet our customers where they're at. They're demanding the use of tools like this, and it's now available, which is exciting.
openpublica.com