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.

So I'll talk a little bit about the project timeline.

Um, we began industry research in 2024.

We heard from our staff that one of the um the uh areas of our opportunity for us is to um is to improve the quality of our applications, um, because that could lead to multiple rounds of resubmittal.

Um so we set out to to figure out how we solve that.

Um so we did some industry research in 2024.

Um, we followed up with an RFP in early of 2025 and selected uh Comply AI, otherwise they do business as SIV check um in August of this year.

And since we've been working to finalize the contract and the statement of work with the vendor and um prepare our presentation for for city council approval.

Um if city council approves, then we plan the kickoff in early Q2, so um likely April of this year with implementation and delivery for our customers by Q3 of this year.

So let me explain what the tool actually is.

Um I mentioned earlier that we often have delays in intake, and uh the quality of our submittals can improve.

Um so what this does, it's a digital platform designed to improve the permitting intake process from the very start.

So it works like a smart checklist or a validation engine for our customers.

As they submit their construction drawings to, it'll surface any deficiencies or maybe tell them that they're good, that your application is really clean and quality, and you can now present to submit to the city, and we'll give them a rating of score to be able to do that.

The beauty about this is they can do it in their kitchen on their kitchen table.

They can work with their design team or their contractor, figure out what the city needs for our similar requirements, and then upload their plans to the tool.

From there, it'll identify service all these issues for them that they can then correct, and then once it's corrected, finally submit to the city for ultimate approval.

So it does those automated pre-checks and document validation.

And we feel overall this will just shorten the amount of time it takes for all that back and forth.

It could take two or three days for our intake staff to be able to review an application, and this provides instant feedback for our customer.

So it immediately shaves off that time, saving them that much needed time and money so we can open up their reviews and start the review process and issue their permits.

And in the future, we can add modules for code compliance as well, starting with single family and duplex projects and later for smaller commercial permits, think like a tenant finish or an office retail.

So these add-ons allow quick checks for zoning and building code compliance, further speeding up the review process.

So the tool I want to know is secure and compliant.

It meets all of our stract access controls, audit logging, and there's no data use for training.

And they're human and there's human oversight still, and that remains essential.

The tool won't make any corrections for the customer.

It will only surface the issues for our customer.

The customer then makes those corrections and ultimately submits to the city, and we still have a permit review technician who will review and monitor the application and accept it for plan review.

So and the tool integrates with our modernization framework and allows strict data governance policies.

Okay, so the guided intake process means fewer handoffs and consistent outcomes, and that just means less back and forth.

You can imagine how frustrating it can be when you send something to the city and they just say, Oh, you're missing a signature, or you're missing a minor issue on your plans.

How frustrating that could probably be for a homeowner or small business who just wants to start the process, and they have to do all this back and forth with the city.

So we're working to alleviate all of that.

And then automation also helps us handle growth without adding additional staff.

As I mentioned earlier, it allows us to be able to react sooner and handle any growth periods.

And we'll have shared KPIs across the different functions across the city.

The permitting system is made up of seven different agencies across the city and multiple functions within those agencies.

And we'll provide and staff that still provide final review for accuracy.

So we'll measure success through key metrics.

One will be around reduced cycle time.

So we know how many cycles it takes to get through our intake process, fewer resubmissions, correct first assignment.

Um our staff have to assign out the various disciplines and reviews that need to look at a project.

So for example, if you're putting an addition on your home, you might need a structural review.

Um if you're impacting the streets or the right-of-way, you'll need a transportation review.

Our staff make that determination, but the tool will assist in that in that determination and then service it for our staff.

And then these KPIs are cross-departmental, as I as I mentioned, ensuring that kind of shared responsibility across our system.

So this approach is proven in other cities.

It can be seen here in Honolulu, Vancouver, New York City, and Seattle, and there are a few other jurisdictions that are starting to adopt this type of technology to use for the customers, and the results include 99% alignment with reviewer expectations and up to 70% reduction in reviewer time.

And we receive on average approximately a thousand permit applications a month.

So even if we say five, 10 minutes per application, that's huge time savings for our staff.

So action today and next step.

So we are requesting council approval and contract execution for for this contract.

And I'll have Anna actually speak to the funding details.

Okay, so the total cost of the contract that will be before you is uh roughly 4.6 million.

Um as Robert mentioned, uh we're pursuing uh the first module first.

Um we're in true including all three modules in the contract so we can secure pricing, um handle all of the kind of back and forth with the vendor, but we're really focusing on that first module first.

Um so the Denver permitting office along with TS has secured or has identified 1.05 million, which covers the cost for all five years of the uh the first module.

Um that's a combination of some grant funding that the DPO is able to secure as well as some initial capital funding, and then um eventually, as most uh contracts do that it'll it would roll into operating at some point.

Um, and then as far as the future modules, um, we're working closely with the Denver permitting office as uh as dollars become available, either through proof of uh via or of success of the first module or through additional uh grant funding, uh we'll work with them to implement modules two and three.

The full cost of the contract, though, is for the whole shibbing, right?

All three modules, all five years, um we wanted that to be uh available to us, um, even though that's not where we're starting.

We're starting with module one.

Great, and uh next steps is we're obviously presenting to you all today, and then it's up for pending committee approval today for full city council consideration next week on the 23rd, then with the planned kickoff in April of 2026.

Um and we will also provide regular updates through the Denver Permitting Office briefings to city council, including progress metrics and uh future module plans.

Great, and I'll open it up for any questions.

Fantastic.

Uh, we've got council member Flynn in the queue.

Anyone else?

Let me know.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thank you, Robert Alana.

Are you skipping mayor council then?

That's it.

I with our contract person, he said we haven't typically gone to mayor council, so for contracts in the past, Joe Separito.

So I I don't know the process on that.

That's skipping a week.

We have this we'll see about that one.

Well, stay tuned for more information on that.

Um, our legislative review contracts.

Uh follow the regular process.

Also, like I said during our briefing, you need a new map maker.

Yes, although if you could move Hawaii closer to the California coast like that, that'd be fantastic.

But I suggest returning returning Vancouver to Canada, and Seattle outside of Eureka should be up on the Puget Sound.

But seriously, the my serious question is how many small project applications do not come in digitally online.

How many people have their contractors show up at the counter and submit analog for lack of a better term?

Plans on paper.

We're no longer accepting paper plans.

We haven't accepted paper plans in a few years now.

So you don't even, it's like the DMV when you renew your plates, you don't go into the office, you got to do it online.

Correct.

All application submittals are done electronically through our e-permit portal.

Um that said, if customers need assistance, they can come down to our counter and we'll offer that support to get them through the application process.

Um, but we feel this is this really the next step in our um evolution here.

Um phase one, step one is really moving away from paper, moving everything to a digital format, and now we've got that digital format, so we can graduate into tools like this.

I'm just thinking of the rollout issues we had with the property tax postcards where we have customers, we have owners who don't do things online, especially for small projects like this.

So they can still come into a counter and have uh someone in a permitting office assist them with doing it digitally.

Correct.

That's correct.

Yes, and they um we offer um many agencies we work with also offer uh appointment times with our customers if they need uh more technical support getting through the intake or plan review process, um and we can follow up with information on how to do that.

Thank you.

There's still some dinosaurs left out there.

Yes, they'll be extinct at some point.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

I also mistakenly forgot to welcome Council President Sandoval.

Apologies, welcome to the meeting.

Council Pro Tem Romero Campbell, you're up.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Uh thank you for taking the time during the briefing.

Uh I know I had a lot of questions.

We're going really deep into how this works and process.

Uh one of the things that wasn't necessarily covered on the slides, but really stood out to me was the nine um uh permitting folks that you have and a thousand applications that come in a month, roughly.

Um, and then you gave a statistic of about two days turnaround for each of those permits.

Um what struck me with this particular tool was that it was going to increase um just that first review that opportunity to be able to know what you know is everything correct in the in the initial process because I hear oftentimes in my district from folks of uh I did all the stuff but then I got it back, and then they caught something else, and it went back and forth, and those two days turn into you know two weeks and beyond.

So I just um I didn't know if you have any ideas to like the time that will be saved, or or do you have or do you anticipate is that a metric that you'll be measuring?

Uh absolutely so we uh it takes uh on average 1.6 cycles to get through our intake process today.

Um which means that's the average, so many are going beyond that.

Um, and our staff are spending roughly 10 minutes per intake review today.

Um so we anticipate that really going down by at least half, um, because you're right, the tool will surface these issues for our customers and also provide a report for our staff on what where there are still deficiencies.

Um, and to steal from councilman Flynn from an earlier conversation, um our staff will be receiving a homework that they'll be able to quickly um go through rather than some of the kind of C or D items that we're getting today.

So we'll just make their their review of that application much faster or more efficient with less rounds of review as well.

So that'll just bring down their total uh cue as well.

Thank you.

Um I don't have any other questions.

Oh, wait a minute, I do.

Um we had talked about the modules, the three modules.

Do you anticipate module two and three coming online in the future, or do you what what's the timeline for that?

Um yes, we would love to um develop those modules, and that'll be contingent on permanent funding and the success of this first module.

Um it's kind of late and see.

Yeah, I think so.

Yeah, we you know, we really want to measure the success of this first tool to ensure that we're getting the our return on investment.

Um, and I think there's the the the biggest area of opportunity is in that first module, and we see the other modules also as um the having big value.

Um but uh I think some of the lessons, some of the lessons we've received and um have been provided to us is to start start, you know, start small, uh start with one module and then start to advance from there.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Great, thank you.

Councilmember Watson.

Uh thank you, committee chair.

Um, I think this is fantastic.

Uh, the idea and and leveraging technology to reduce waste and handoffs.

First question: are we creating profiles for users?

Or is this just single use?

Um, there won't be full profiles of users to demonstrate efficiencies.

Single use, no, we're not storing any data in in the civ check applications.

Uh they have profiles in a cella, which is our our standard uh permitting software.

This is a single use product.

As for the measuring of success for handoff reductions, um, what are you thinking of as far as those targets?

Because within that initial review, there might be several handoffs.

Are you considering uh a kind of uh a managed target for reduction of handoffs as well?

And can you share a little bit of that?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, I think as I mentioned earlier, we were averaging about one and a half kind of handoffs or cycles with our customers today.

Um, and we absolutely want to bring that down closer to one.

Um we'd like to see um we have a goal of 80 percent of applications getting accepted upon the first round.

Um today it's roughly 38 percent get accepted on that first round.

Um, so if we can get to a place where kind of most, you know, 80% of those applications getting accepted on the first round, then that just leaves you know leave room for a few to get through.

Um, and then it also allows our staff to work with those customers a little bit more because they might be more complicated projects.

Is there a mean for the most successful municipalities that are using this as far as that uh shrinking of time uh handoffs and whatever the end-to-end review process is?

So is it 80%, is it 92%, is it 78%?

I mean, what's the mean and what and what are we targeting?

Yeah, that's a great question.

I think I might have to follow up with the the vendor and get back to you on that, councilman.

Um, and the success they've seen in another cities.

They have reported successes, but I can get those actual numbers for you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Great, thank you.

Well, thank you all so much.

Um I do have one question on slide 10, just in terms of the funding.

So I really appreciate that module one is gonna hopefully get us the most bang for our buck and really implement this and show us what is kind of being done and whether it's successful.

I am really concerned from the customer service perspective because I will say module two, right?

The single family residential remodels is where we as where I I'll just use I statements where I in my council office receive the most concern and complaints.

So I I understand that you want to test it before you invest in the whole thing.

Um I would say I will really I would really push for you guys to include module two as soon as you possibly can, assuming that this does successfully work.

My concern is the funding, the fact that you only have uh 1.1 in funding, and that that came from grants and not the general fund.

A small I will clarify a small portion from grants, and that's really for the implementation.

Um the rest of it the ongoing operator or the ongoing costs are city dollars.

So yeah, and eventually the whole thing will have to transfer to the general fund, right?

Because tech services is funded out of the general fund, and so um I appreciate you maximizing our dollars through a grant where you can, but in order for us to continue with this, it's going to have to roll over to the general fund.

And again, from the customer service perspective, the vast majority of the land use in the city is single family housing, which makes module two the one that is actually going to customer service-wise give us the most bang for our buck.

Yeah.

And we can't get down the line for that.

Well, and if I can respond to that, so um, so for the the first module, the intake module, it's comprehensive, so it um is for all application types, including all single-family duplex projects.

So our single-family duplex customers will still receive a ton of benefit using the intake module.

Um, because it'll it'll help them through that application process and guide them, um, guide their submittal with us.

And you're right, we do a large percentage of our uh permit volume is on the residential single family duplex side.

Um, and I think this is where the tool really shines.

Um, it'll really assist our homeowners, um, and small business owners as well.

Um, getting through the process and providing some additional guidance.

Um, and uh one of our first parties will be ensuring that all of our checklists and intake requirements for single family duplex projects are are available, and we're providing those to the vendors so we can make that portion go live just as soon as possible.

Awesome.

Really appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

Um, seeing no other questions, this is an action item, so I will need a motion and a second.

Moved by Council Pro Tem Romero Campbell, seconded by Councilmember Cashman.

Is she on the committee?

I don't know.

Let me look.

No.

Are you allowed to please?

Oh no.

Romero Campbell, you cannot move this.

Moved by Councilmember Cash and seconded by Council President Sandoval.

Um, do we need a roll call vote?

No, but just some clarity on whether this is good, intending to skip where council or not.

Yes, I uh looked to the mayor's office and they said they are discussing it.

I don't have a better answer for you than that.

I do.

I have a better answer.

Great.

Uh well, with that, we will see you on the floor at some point.

Yes, thank you so much for the time.

Thank you very much.

Um, and we are gonna switch over to our briefing now, which is our state legislative conversation.

Um, there are a number of presenters today, so I don't know.

I will recognize all of the experts who are here in the room to talk about all the different things that we're gonna talk about.

Um, but this is gonna be led by our lobbyists, um, and then uh council member Gonzalez Gutierrez and the mayor's office and I.

So, we're gonna take a hot second and then we're gonna let you guys introduce yourselves.

Oh, they'll take it down.

That's the perfect talk.

I love this.

Yeah.

All right, you're up.

Well, great.

Well, good morning.

It's great to be with you all at that time of year where we have this incredible opportunity.

So, Adam Paul with the mayor's office here with our lobby team, um, from policy matters, and also as a quick reminder on the city side, the mayor's office is Tim Hoffman and myself, who represent um the mayor on the legislative committee.

And of course, the two council representatives are the chair uh this morning, Councilor Sawyer, as well as Councillor Gonzalez Gutierrez.

So, appreciate that opportunity to come forth.

And on the lobby team, we have three folks.

If you want to introduce yourself, hi everyone.

I'm Heather Retzko with the Policy Matters.

Uh Katie Hancock with Policy Matters, and Hiben Aluna also with policy matters.

All right.

So we're um in to about 150 bills that have come through and are working their ways through the agencies as far as looking at impacts and and other issues related to the state legislation.

We go to this slide, you'll see that uh as far as official positions, we have five in support, one oppose, four amend, and four in monitor.

This is a high level of what we're where we're at.

I'll note that the opposed position is an interesting bill that probably doesn't have a future that deals with regulation of drones, and there's certain impacts to Dan, and also potentially looking for uh answer to issues that are out there, so we uh been very active on that, and then uh kind of a list of these others.

I'll pull out just uh 001, which we'll be talking about, but uh 1033, cottage food acts.

There's some issues that we're working through, but feel like we have a positive opportunity to move forward, and then um the monument records placement has to do with um surveying and simply just getting on legislative record that we are um have um we're exempt from that will suffice.

So we'll be able to hopefully start moving some of these off of that.

And if you want to come back later on or have any questions on any of these, please feel free to reach out.

These are council specific.

Sorry, I'm here to put your vote quick for this one.

Hi, Matt Walter, uh senior council aide for Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer, Chair Amanda Sawyer, district five.

Um, as you can see here, these are the two that have been taken by council, but not necessarily taken by the city and county of Denver.

We have uh House Bill 1005.

That's the worker protection collective bargaining.

That's the one that amends the Labor Peace Act.

Um, and we're probably familiar with that conversation from last year.

And we have Senate Bill uh 042, and that's revenue classification taxpayer bill of rights.

This one reclassifies, redefines certain um revenues and expenditures at the state level to try and circumvent and readjust the taper cap a little bit.

My lobby team is nodding yes, so I think I got that right.

Um and that's all there.

Thank you.

All right, so we'll move right in to uh House Bill 001, formerly known as Yigby, now known as home.

If Katie's gonna frame it, then we have our uh community planning and development experts with us.

Yep.

So um as Adam said, this is the latest iteration iteration of the Yigby bill now called the Home Act.

Um it removed uh churches uh from last year's uh legislation and instead added in um nonprofit organizations, specifically those around affordable housing.

So it requires local governments to allow residential development on qualifying properties owned by certain nonprofit organizations, school districts, state colleges or universities, housing authorities or a transit district or transportation authority.

And we are in a men position, and community planning development um has uh five or six at this point, and that's not to say that even if those are accepted, that will move the committee to a support.

And we're also um tried to have the opportunity to address our ADU concerns within this bill.

There is an update that the way that they may proceed is actually gonna be through rulemaking through uh the Department of Local Affairs.

So we'll keep you um up to date on what that looks like, but it doesn't look like there'd be an amendment for uh detached in this piece.

So if we want to, do you want to go into the amendments?

Yeah, I think we should probably talk about each one separately because otherwise it will just get very overwhelming.

So go ahead.

Uh CP.

Do you is there anyone?

Would you like to come and talk through the amendments on this one really quickly?

You could just come to the mic, or you if you want to come and sit, you're welcome to.

That's great.

Okay, thanks, Co.

I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development.

Yeah, we recommended a number of amendments to this bill, some technical, but some more substantive.

The bill doesn't track with the state's um requirements regarding smart growth strategic growth elements in terms of where it's allowing residential, right?

So it'll allow these qualifying organizations to build more residential in areas like industrial or open space places that our plans don't call for that.

Um so we've suggested, you know, we've highlighted to the state that there's a difference there.

We we also have um there could be um additional clarifications around um how we measure the time.

These organizations will have um the ones that are nonprofits that provide housing, have to have been in that business for five years, but doesn't it's not clear to us about how we measure that.

So a lot of these are around you know who's gonna determine how do they prove that it's a nonprofit organization, what kinds of things are we as a city going to have to do administratively to understand who qualifies or not?

Because unlike other land use bills, this one doesn't require the city to change its zoning, it just preempts the city and says the city shall start now allowing these things.

So there's a lot um of confusion around that.

And then and importantly, similarly to that, the the allowances that are provided are only provided to those organizations.

So, after that, that um whether it's the RTD or housing provider builds the building and then sells it to a homeowner, the homeowner doesn't have the same rights to build more units or taller buildings that those organizations did.

So they'll build they'll have non-conforming structures, right?

Unless the city changes our zoning to allow them to have more than their neighbors have.

And so, you know, there's an opportunity there to also clarify in the bill, um, unless again the city in the future wants to change our zoning to allow um those folks to have the additional allowances.

They would not otherwise, happen zoning.

So that that's the high level we have a number of technical amendments too that we think would make the bill easier to administer.

Awesome.

Thank you.

I have council members in the queue with questions, and um, I will just say before we get started with that, uh, so remember, and for those watching at home, um, in order for the official city and county of Denver position to exist, the mayor's office uh city agencies, and council have to agree on a position.

So I want to first just compliment council members.

Thank you all for being so responsive so that we can make sure that we're getting information back to our lobbyists to be able to take a position.

This one is really hard because it's poorly written and we definitely want amendments to happen.

It is also an absolute preemption of our land use authority.

So this is a tough one that I think we will probably come back to council members and have an additional discussion and ask for different feedback on.

Because right now we are officially as the city and county of Denver in an amended position so that we can get these really important amendments that are coming from CPD into the bill to make it functional at all, should it pass?

The question is if we can get those amendments in, and that's an if.

Um is this something that we are going to ever are there ever enough amendments on the planet to make this supported or not?

So just want to flag that for council members.

Then Council President Sandoval, did you have a question?

Yeah, thank you.

Um, so in the bill, does it define what certain nonprofit organizations are?

What's the definition of certain profit organizations?

Yes, we have them.

I will have that right now.

That's right.

Um, nonprofit organization means an organization authorized to do business in the state that is exempt from um taxation of the federal internal revenue code.

Umprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing means a nonprofit organization that within the last five years has developed projects which have received federal low-income housing tax credits or state affordable housing credits, been awarded funding through the federal home investment partnerships program, um, been awarded funding to support the creation, preservation, or rehabilitation of affordable housing from the color from Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, or a local government.

Um, one question I have if you go back to the very beginning part of the taxation.

Wouldn't that just equal churches?

Because who else doesn't pay federal?

Like who out, I guess I'd have to go into a definition of that.

So I I'll need more research on that.

If you all could research that, yeah.

Absolutely.

But I think it still means churches.

Um, or like we don't pay taxes, right?

On our land, and the state doesn't, um, which I think that's covered under some of those, like DPS doesn't, but I think it's written in a way to say churches without saying churches, is my take on just reading that, just hearing that.

So I would love if you all could just do a deeper dive on that.

Absolutely.

I think you have a great question.

Yeah, and I will say that is right, and it also actually is more expansive than Yig B was last year because, like, for example, we have registered neighborhood organizations that are 501c3s.

Okay, we I mean, there's there are a myriad of options that fall under this, it's much more expansive than it was last year.

Thank you.

And then one other question.

So anyone who went for LITEC, low-income housing tax credits and is a nonprofit, they could qualify if I read your if I read that correctly, is that accurate?

Um the way that it's written, yes.

Yeah, okay.

That's at issue two.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

This one's problematic, I would say uh I wonder if there are enough amendments on the planet to make this palatable to us.

Um, but for now, it is important that should it pass, we get these functional amendments in that CPD has flagged.

So just want to say thank you for doing that.

Really appreciate those.

Can I ask?

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, one question for you just to clarify the significance of the five years that you mentioned.

Can you talk a bit more about that requirement that you have to be in place for five years?

Right, yeah.

So this this language we were just talking about that defines a nonprofit organization, and then more specifically who qualifies for this is a nonprofit organization that has provided affordable housing within the last five years, and then there's a number of things that that qualifies.

LITEC, other you know, things that they show that they've done that.

Um it just says within the last five years.

What it the bill doesn't say is starting from when, like from the time they apply from a permit, from the time that the bill is passed.

Understood, but at any time within the last five years is the current language of the bill.

If an organization has done any of those housing things, they would qualify.

Understood, okay.

And then um one question, I don't know if this is for CPD or you all um regarding the a qualifying property is real property that contains no more than five acres of land and is owned by, and then it goes on onto the list.

Is it five acres in total?

Like for the nonprofit, or is it simply for what you might be developing on?

That's a good question, and we'll see clarification.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions on this one.

Let's move on to the next one.

Okay.

Colleague might have to come back up.

Yeah, producer, if you could pull up the slide deck again.

Thank you.

1065, didn't you do want to?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, so 1065, this bill creates the transit investment area act, allowing local governments with state approval to designate transmit transit investment areas and use a portion of increased state sales tax revenue generated within those areas to finance transit related projects for up to 30 years.

It establishes an application, review, and approval process, limits the number of projects and total funding that may be approved, and permits the creation or designation of financing authorities to manage the revenue.

It also creates a new affordable housing tax credit authorizing 50 million annually from 2027 through 2033 to support low and middle income housing and transmit transit investment zones.

All right, and then we have, and Kyle, I'm not sure who wants to come.

We have some amendments that were requested for 1065.

Yes, and council is officially in an amend position on this one, um, and so I believe we'll talk about that tomorrow in our weekly meeting, um, uh registering an official position on this one.

Um, but council member, we have 10 council members in an amend position on this one.

Anyone from CPD wanna talk about what amendments we are searching for specifically?

Yeah, again, I'm Kyle Dalton with CPD.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to get the folks who worked on this bill um to see if they're able to join.

We weren't aware this would be on the agenda.

But I can I can share broadly what our departments um amendment uh comments were.

Let's see.

Um we were looking to they're mostly around uh again clarifying what it means to be to um substantially increase transit utilization to qualify for these grants.

Um we suggested limiting the use of funding for parking and improvements that that don't necessarily support transit access, um, require transit supportive zoning in order to qualify, require a plan that advances TOD principles in the transit investment zone.

Um and let's see, add a requirement for representation of members with uh relevant planning housing transit expertise on the transit advisor investment authority board that would have the authority um under this bill to do this to do this funding.

Thank you.

Yeah, so there are six specific amendments that CPD has recommended on this one, which is why we recommended an amend position to you all, and we provided you in your weekly email the the specific six amendments that Kyle just went through.

Um should we get them?

We already do this as a city.

Is that right, Kyle?

There's pretty much um, I'm sorry, I I don't, I don't, I'm not familiar if we do, so I'd have to get back to you on that.

Okay, yeah.

I feel like this one we um this one is not there's not a ton for us to do or change should we get those six specific amendments.

Is that right, Adam?

I'm not a hundred percent sure.

There's another bill that I think that kind of doesn't mirror this, but might have more in line with what Denver does with our housing authorities.

So I would have to double check.

Okay, yeah.

I can't remember that either.

Council Member Gonzalez Gutiérrez, can you remember?

I'm no, no, I mean either.

So this one, we know that there are six amendments that we are looking for on this one, um, and we are ready to be in an amend position, I think, as a city.

Go ahead, Council President.

One question.

Yeah, what's the difference between this one and the one that we approved last year?

Yeah, the TOD, because it also draws down money, and we also have a map in the city and county in Denver.

So I'm the like crazy land use person who puts charts together and like comparison charts.

I love that in zoning, because you can do one zone district against another and know the differences.

Have we done that?

Have the lobbyists done the exercise for us on what's the main differences between the what the TOC bill that we had last year and this one?

I like they're very is reading it off the cuff.

It sounds similar.

We're gonna have uh phone a friend here.

We have to staff, Dominic Moreno.

Uh Dominic Moreno, deputy chief of staff to the mayor.

Um the the key difference in my reading is this creates more of a tax increment financing mechanism because it allows you to redirect the state sales tax revenue in a in an investment district, whereas last year uh the TOC bill was more around upzoning um areas within a uh a certain proximity of a transit area.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Flynn and then Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to be clear, this is only state sales tax revenue, it doesn't involve any of our cities sales tax, correct?

Katie.

All right, Councilmember Lewis.

Um, thank you.

I have a couple of questions um here.

Let me get back into the bill.

Oh, so I wanted to ask about this requirement um that's written here for the director to be like the first person who's reviewing the applicants for potential projects.

And it sounds like it's you have this commission, but you also have the director who's looking at all applications and then determining which applications to forward.

Is that director eliminating applications and then form forwarding what has they have approved or seen worthy of moving to the commission, or is it just a space of review?

Um it seems like the director would review each application and then forward the application with a recommendation on whether or not it should be approved.

Okay, so what's the purpose of the commission?

So they they approve, they do the final approving of the three transit investment projects in a calendar year, six in total.

But based on the recommendation from the director, so it's not necessarily working within their autonomy if the director is making the recommendation and they are just approving whatever the recommendation is coming from that director.

I would imagine become a competitive process.

Okay, similar to like the TOC, where multiple projects come in and then they're scored and and the recommendation, and then they have up to three to approve, but we can get better clarification on that, yeah.

You wouldn't mind I appreciate it.

And then the second I have um the second question I have is regarding um the commission to dedicate no more than 75 million in a fiscal year, but when you read a bit further down, um in the bill, it says this a bill allows 50 million of credits to be awarded each calendar year beginning in 2027.

Can you just tell me the difference between the two of those?

That'd be different.

Um I see what you're talking about.

Well we'll we'll get you clarification on all those.

Okay, thank you.

That's it.

Okay, thank you.

Great, thank you.

So again, I think there are specific amendments that we are asking for here, which is why we're in amend position, and uh we will see what comes next.

Ready to go to the next one?

All right, 1037.

All right, uh 1037 is the banned government purchase of personal data from third party.

It prohibits law enforcement and other government entities from purchasing or otherwise obtaining for anything of value certain personal data from third parties, um law enforcement agencies and other government entities are also prohibited from sharing individuals' personal data between themselves.

Um this bill hasn't been scheduled for uh committee yet.

It is facing a lot of opposition from cities and counties.

Um, what we've heard from Denver agencies and other local government is that it just casts too wide of a net and will impact, like it says, other government entities outside of law enforcement, such as human services and housing programs and and things like that.

Yeah, and I and I would echo that there's a lot of feedback that we've received, and I'm not sure if that's all been sent, but there are concerns from DLCP with software related to pawn brokers, second-hand dealers, drunk dealers.

TS has a lot as far as just kind of different sharing within the organization.

Uh the courts have have weighed in with some information as well.

DHS has um some areas of concern and then safety as well, and we have some of our safety experts here to uh to answer any questions that you might have related to.

Before we go to question safety, do you guys have anything you want to share with us or good morning, Cliff Barnes, uh DPD commander of our Cyber Bureau and uh Commander Matt Clark.

Morning, Matt Clark, over to the media crimes division.

Uh I think we can just keep it pretty simple.

I've already given some information in other uh contexts and venues, but I think uh, you know, we um this will deeply impact our operations from from many different aspects.

I think today we can we can spend some time talking about some of the investigative impacts and our ability to uh successfully um investigate various crimes.

Uh we employ uh um uh numerous uh third-party investigative data tools in in uh investigating these uh crimes that occur.

And uh this bill is written so broadly that we were talking about pretty much prohibiting the majority of the use of those tools, and I think that would be deeply impactful to our ability to successfully resolve some of these cases.

Um, the we're still getting that wrangle on on what the data looks like.

Uh, it looks like you know, over the course of 2025, uh we leverage these tools in in nearly 20 percent uh of all arrests that we made in the year of 2025 when we're talking about investigative cases uh by themselves, so cases that uh that went to an investigator, um it looks like those numbers are approaching 50 percent.

So uh again, significantly impactful.

Um, you know, when we're talking about there's some other things too.

I I noticed that pawning uh was just mentioned a minute or two ago.

So some of these platforms allow pawn data to be reported throughout the city.

Um, you know, that one of those platforms is called leads online, and and under the the current language of the bill, that would be prohibited as well.

So uh happy to answer any questions.

Uh obviously, this is uh this could be deeply impactful at many levels to our operations and ability to investigate crime.

So, thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez Gutierrez.

I think you have some thoughts on this one.

Yes, I do.

Thank you, um, Madam Chair.

Um, you know, I know that this was sent over with a recommendation to oppose.

However, I was hoping that we could also consider an amend amend position.

Um, if there are concerns, are there ways that in which we can address those concerns?

You know, looking at the bill, there is a provision that does allow for some exceptions when it comes to um judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order, um, and any incompany affidavit to each party.

Um it also talks about for in emergency situations that there is good faith effort, um, that there that it that a situation that involves the risk of death or serious bodily injury to a person that requires immediate disclosure.

Um, and so I think this is of course top of mind for us right now when it comes to sharing of personal information and data, um, as we've been navigating that, and those of us on the surveillance task force have been very in those conversations and um and so I I think that you know what the bill sponsors are I think are trying to do is kind of address a little bit of what some of the issues that we've had here even in Denver and I think in other uh municipalities across the state.

I will also just note this um now for us on city council, it doesn't matter, but it does for them.

It is a bipartisan bill.

Um so they do have um both sides on this bill.

Um so I just want to note that, and that one of the legislators is a Denver legislator, also um is the assistant majority leader in the House.

Great, thank you.

Um, and I will just say uh flagging for council members, we have two specific bills that we have passed as city council that um are directly impacted negatively by this bill.

The first one is our catalytic converter bill, which uses leads online, which is the pawn shop um uh database um that we would no longer be allowed to use.

And I will just remind everyone that um our catalytic converter theft rate went to almost zero percent last year as a results of this bill.

Um the second is Councilman Watson and Councilwoman Alvedres's uh scrap metal bill, which also uses leads online, bless you, uh, because of our um pawn shop uh because of the way the secondary market works and leads online is um the pawn shop database that essentially allows us to shut down the secondary market in both of these um pieces of legislation that were advanced by city council.

So we will no longer be able to on the things we have written and voted on under the this bill.

Um the question is is there enough amendments on the planet to be able to support this bill?

And the short answer based on the feedback from almost almost every or every city agency that um does investigative, any sort of investigative research, and this is things like domestic violence and um uh you know uh beyond criminal investigations within the department of safety will not be able to function.

Um, Watson.

Thank you, uh, committee chair, and and I'll just share as well.

I it's it's my hope that we remain in that if we're because I don't think we're in the pose as yet we're five five one.

We're not opposed.

We are um in this one, we are split five between oppose and amend.

Correct.

So um my hope is that we get to oppose.

I just think across the board um from the impacts that this is gonna have on not just legislation that we passed, but also on kind of the uh city agencies and the impact for each of those city agencies that they've communicated.

I I don't know how we amend uh this to a point where we can get through.

So um I I appreciate the dialogue on it, but I hope we get to a close.

Great council member Lewis, two questions.

One, maybe operating on some naivety.

You all purchase, uh so in the bill it says um the bill prohibits law enforcement and other government entities from purchasing you all have purchase agreements between the software that you were just data, data software that you were just mentioning.

So, uh and I appreciate the the question, council member.

So essentially the bill based on my reading prohibits exchanging anything of value, and so these data agreements come in a couple different forms.

For example, you know, we enter into some contractual agreements where we pay for services.

Lexus Nexus is a good example of that, right?

But then there's some other models where uh, for example, CarFax.

So if you are in a crash, uh motor vehicle crash in the city and county of Denver, and you were uh you were uh a victim in in that crash, then you can get online and you can obtain a copy of that report.

That's through Carfax.

The way that we obtain that service is by exchanging our crash data to the provider um for that service.

So we're not actually paying for it if that makes sense.

We're actually just exchanging value that they are uh exchanging data that is anonymized for that service.

So that would also prohibit things like that as well.

And I think the the major issue is that this is a blanket prohibition.

So essentially um, you know, we would be unable to maintain these contractual or commercial relationships with all of these vendors.

So even if we did have a warrant for a specific individual to obtain that data, we don't have the the commercial relationship to obtain that data.

There's other mechanisms, there's other legal mechanisms to potentially obtain data in certain circumstances, but we're talking about you know being able to investigate something immediately versus weeks from now, going through uh, you know, a more extensive legal process.

So even um if it says in the case of an emergency, it wouldn't that language would not be sufficient enough for you all to be able to actually act emergently.

Correct, because we would not have the the contractual relationships with these vendors, so the service would not be available for us uh to utilize in those in those circumstances.

Got it.

Is there uh I you mentioned carve outs.

Are there any carve outs that you all have spoken about or that maybe the bill sponsors have spoken about to be able to both uh achieve them being able to pass their bill or move the bill forward?

I don't know if it passes, um, and you all being able to continue to um remain in your operations without challenges.

I think just based on the way that the bill is broadly the broad language of the bill and the blanket prohibition.

I just don't uh my this is my personal opinion.

I don't see uh a way to amend it to make it uh functional at this point.

Thank you.

That's super helpful.

And then my final question, maybe for you all, is how do you define obtaining for anything of value?

It's pulling it up right now.

Okay, thank you.

Um is it?

No, so the definition that it lists is exchange for anything of value means to obtain or receive access to an item data or information in exchange for money or other valuable consideration in connection with services or benefits provided as consideration or as part of the provision of a fee, including an access fee, service fee, maintenance fee, or licensing fee.

Can you tell me what page you're on?

Yes, I am on page four.

Great top of page four.

Lovely, thank you.

That's it, thank you.

Great, thank you, Councilmember Flynn.

Well, thank you, Chair.

This bill is fundamentally is approaching a fundamentally different aspect of information than what we've been looking at on the surveillance task force.

These are generally public records that are accumulated in a depository that not just Department of Safety, but a lot of our agencies use it.

Councilman Watson mentioned some of them.

This is uh this is just a warrant, a labyrinth of regulations and prohibitions that will significantly impact not just the Matt and trying to investigate an assault or or a homicide.

Uh but Department of Human Services, uh Community Planning and Development, all of our agencies.

I don't understand.

I just think it's an overreach.

And uh, a member of the public, a citizen could subscribe to some of these services, uh, but not our not our city departments.

That doesn't make sense to me.

I I don't see any way to uh to amend it to make it acceptable.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Um, so I will remind council members we are split on this one.

Um we are required to come to some sort of clear agreement in order to uh even have a conversation about whether the city and county of Denver will take an official position on this.

So for those of you who put more information or who have not responded at all or who have different opinions after hearing this uh conversation, I would urge you to um update in uh in our tracker um where you are leaning so that so that we can uh move forward with this one.

Great, I would just add, I'm sure from the mayor's office side, the the agencies um are our safety folks.

You know, the question was asked could we find a way to amend and and we always do try, they're very creative in trying to find ways to uh be proactive in in the legislative process.

I think one of the challenges we're faced with is it's so many different agencies and uh so many I kind of won-off issues that um are a challenge that could make it more challenging for us to find an amendable future with it.

So thank you.

Great, thank you.

Next up, we have a couple just kind of high high um just levels of interest in these two.

We don't have a lot of information.

We're still waiting for internal reviews, but uh thought we'd bring these and and Tim Hoffman, my colleague on the legislative committee will kind of go through 70 and 71 and really leave it up to you all to have a discussion, and we're here to take feedback and listen to your conversation.

And I will just lie, for you, we have not sent this to you as council members yet.

Um we wanted to sort of present and talk and have a conversation here first before we send it to you.

So expect it this week.

Thank you, the committee chairs and offman and also the mayor's office.

So I'll start with 070, which is primarily sponsored by Senator Amable.

The short title for this one is Protecting Everyone from Excessive Police Surveillance, otherwise known as the Peeps Act.

And what it does is specifically targets license plate reader technology and prohibits government entities from accessing license plate reader technology, but then lists out certain exceptions.

One of the sections one of the exceptions would be whether law enforcement obtained a judicial warrant.

Another would be if an individual consents to having their location information tracked.

A third would be in the event that your car is stolen and you are the registered owner, you could essentially sign a waiver that would allow uh law enforcement to then track that license plate, similar to the prior discussion.

There's an exemption for exigent circumstances, and then there is also a carve out for traffic and parking enforcement.

Um so that would not be subject to the prohibition of this bill.

It also um puts pretty strict limitations on the sharing of uh historic license plate information with other jurisdictions, requires um each jurisdiction to come up with policies to make sure that they are in compliance with the PEEPS Act, and then finally uh it cuts the retention policy of such data to four days.

Um just as a reminder, in Denver, we currently retain it for 30 days, so it would cut that to four days.

Um so that is uh 070 of the PEEPS Act.

Um, that has a committee date next week, I believe on the 23rd.

Um, so we'll be moving, um, moving forward a little bit faster.

Um, 071 is the surveillance accountability and freedom insured act, the SAFE Act.

Um, that is being driven by Senator Wilson in uh the uh the state senate that looks at a broader um regulation of all surveillance technologies, not just license plate reader technology.

It looks at um facial recognition, looks at drones, look at light looks at license plate readers.

Um it is not necessarily as prescripted as zero seven zero, um, but does mandate that each jurisdiction come up with um some pretty specific guidelines.

It does have requirements around, for example, facial tech uh facial recognition technology to employ that, you would need a warrant, um, and then has longer retention policies.

Um I think in some instances it's either 30 days or 90 days, depending on the technology.

Um, so those are over overviews of the two.

Um, we are still waiting um on all agencies to give feedback on these.

Um, I do think that there is some concerns that um DPD has already shared and uh relation to the uh other piece of legislation, those are mirrored in these as well.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

So I will say, um, I don't know, Labius.

What do you think about 71?

Do you does it seem like that one has a lot of legs, or should we kind of focus more on 70?

I would say I think 70 has more legs than 71, but it's still helpful to have feedback and be able to speak to the sponsors on both of them.

But we have a lot more sponsors, yes.

This 70 sponsorship is very strong.

All right, I don't have anyone in the queue, and I know that council members have opinions on this.

So like I said, we have not sent this to you yet.

We are still waiting for agency feedback on it.

Um, we are hoping to send it to you this week to get your feedback on it.

Uh, Councilwoman Gonzalez Gutierrez, anything you would like to share?

Yeah, um, so we did send it for your information, yes, but not for feedback.

Um, but I forgot to say earlier that um just to wish somebody a happy birthday today.

Um, Tom and happy birthday.

Sorry, I forgot.

Hey, happy birthday.

Great.

Councilmember Lewis.

I assume that when you all send it to us, you'll send the as you have then the feedback on the agencies.

Yes, you got the feedback this week that we had, um, but there wasn't a full amount of feedback yet.

And this one is really complicated, right?

And as council members, we are split on sort of how we feel about this.

Um, I think uh, which is why we didn't send it to you yet.

We wanted to like prep everyone by giving you kind of what we do have last week, but not ask you for feedback specifically.

This week we will be asking you for feedback specifically on this one.

Yeah.

All right, everyone is so quiet on this one.

That's so weird.

I think that's what I think that's I think that's right.

All right, then let's move on.

The fun stuff.

I don't know if I would call that fun stuff.

It's been, as you all know, a really challenging time for our state budget.

Um our team has continued to monitor the joint budget committee as they work through the governor's November 1st budget request that we outlined for you the last time we met with you ahead of this session.

Believe it or not, the JBC is already through the supplemental process.

So the supplementals passed through the House last week, and then they're in the Senate this week, and those are essentially just budget requests to true up um departmental budgets in the current fiscal year.

Um there's nothing major of note there for us to update you on, but they are going to start figure setting um in the next couple of weeks.

HICPUF and the Department of Human Services are a huge priority for us.

There's a lot of county impact, especially in the um in the human services um areas, and so we'll be working very closely with the department on that.

Um sorry, oh, I thought we had said.

Um, as we had mentioned ahead of the session, the big focus of the governor's office um to true up the budget is really around Medicaid.

Um, they proposed some pretty significant cuts to providers across the state in what's called across the board provider rate decreases, and so they decreased a 1.6% um provider rate cut, and then they're proposing an additional 0.75% provider rate cut, which would be taken up during figure setting.

Um, so that is certainly something that is going to impact um providers in the city and county of Denver, and something we're monitoring very closely.

Um the big thing we wanted to highlight for you and just really compliment your Department of Human Services and their collaboration with the other um human services directors across the state is this county centralization and regionalization approach.

So earlier in the um budget process, um HICPUF the Department of Healthcare policy and financing made this massive recommendation to the joint budget committee that would essentially both centralize how the state admin state and counties administer um public benefits and then also a regionalization approach, which would essentially uh create 11 regions throughout the state, and those counties would work together on the administration of benefits, all in the name of trying to reduce our um payment error rates and really reduce the costs of administering these programs both on the state and the counties.

The counties um were not consulted with this original approach, and so they spent a lot of time and effort coming together, coming to the table to figure out what they could actually do to help decrease these error rates and also share services to um that share services in a in the attempt to save the state money and counties money.

They did present a proposal to the joint budget committee two weeks ago, I believe.

And the great thing is the JBC um made the recommendation to table HICPUF's um HICPUFS approach and buy time for us to work with the counties on an approach that would actually work for us in the regionalization.

Um the HICPUF's recommendation was to um lump Denver in with Arapahoe County and then have a Rapahoe County administer be like the administer of our benefits.

So I I definitely think this county-driven approach is really smart.

The JBC um is taking a look at that right now and will continue to engage along with our colleagues, colleagues at CCI on that approach.

And then the other um important thing we wanted to update you on is the relative guardian assistance program, guardianship assistance program.

Um the department also made a recommendation to shift the costs um the payment structure from 80 20 to 90 10, which would essentially um move the c more of the cost onto counties to the tune of 12 million dollars.

We also were successful in getting this measure tabled so that counties can have time to work together together to come up with a cost savings solution that um is not 12 million dollars.

Um so that will now be part of the figure setting process, and our team will be there and working with um the departments on how we navigate that.

Awesome, thank you.

Questions on budget.

All right.

Seeing none, um, we do have a couple of other bills um to discuss.

Uh the first one is um, and these are council bills that are or bills that council is considering that the mayor's office or agencies have not or are not going to consider.

Um, so before we get started on those, I just want to say thank you guys so much.

Please um, you know, feel free to stay and be resourced for us as we um go through a couple of these bills really quickly.

Um, but really appreciate all of your work and advocacy on all of these things for us.

So um just as a reminder to everyone, we have we only do this committee once a month.

So next time around um will be March 17th, and um some of these bills will have already moved through committee at that point.

So it is really important um that if you have questions, you reach out to the lobbyists or to us um to get additional information for you as we are asking you to take um positions on these kinds of things, or if you want more background on any of the any of the um things that we are discussing here.

Um, so we'll start with the first one.

That is um 1005.

Matt mentioned this one.

Um, this is there are 11 council members in support of this one.

Just wanted to touch on it briefly.

Um, Councilwoman Gonzalez Gutierrez, do you want to I don't know that do you the background on that?

I mean I think we're pretty.

Matt already gave us a background, yeah.

So 1005 is worker protections and collective bargaining.

Um, that is something that we as council have said is a priority.

Um we feel really strongly that we would like to ask you all for support of this.

There are 11 members in council across council in support of this.

Um, is the mayor Adam, do you know, is the mayor's office going to, are we gonna get to an official city and county of Denver position on this one, or are you guys in a monitor?

Monitoring right now.

Monitoring this one, which is totally fair.

Um, so this is one that council members will be uh registering support for as a city council official position, but not the official position of the city and county of Denver.

So I suspect your follow-up question is going to be how are you gonna do that?

Which is totally fair.

Um, so councilwoman Gonzalez Gutierrez and I have decided to um send a weekly email from City Council to the Denver delegation that just makes it clear if there are positions or bills that Denver City Council is considering versus the official city and county of Denver position.

The official city and county of Denver position, we registered with the secretary of state.

Um, there is no opportunity for the city council of Denver to register anything with the state.

So what we're doing is just having our staff, and I want to acknowledge Matt and Emmy great job on doing this.

Um we just send an email every week that sort of says these are the bills that Denver City Council is looking at this week.

These are bills that Denver City Council has taken a position on that is not the official position of the city and county of Denver.

And then these are the bills that the official that are the official position of city and county of Denver.

So 1005 is one of those bills that the mayor's office is in monitor.

We are in support.

We are not in agreement on this.

Um, fine.

So uh that is how we are sharing those positions.

Councilmember Gonzalez Gutierrez, do you have any additional?

Yeah, I'll just add because I know we kind of went over this a little bit last year.

There were some of the bills, and this was actually this was one of them where we had um a great majority of council members that took a pos took a position one way or the other, and it was support last year um for this same exact bill that the governor vetoed.

And so what we can do as a body is we can also write a letter that those who want to sign on to it are welcome to, and that's something that we're also considering is drafting up letters, which we did that last year as well for some of the council-only positions type of bills, um, since we don't we can't utilize our lobby team for these.

Um but also any of you are welcome to go and provide public um testimony on any of these bills, um, obviously on any of them, and then for any council members, maybe you know, if you're in um the minority and maybe disagree or have a difference of opinion, you're also welcome to still go.

But we can state on the record that city council um is in support of this bill.

Like we can say that as a body, and this one clearly there's 11 of us.

We can say that city council supports it, uh, but then you can also go as your own individual council member and say whatever your personal in your personal capacity and in your um even in your official capacity as a council member can say um, you know, this is something that I support, or this is something that I oppose or would like to see it look different.

Yeah, thanks.

So there's so 1005 is one of those bills.

The second one, as Matt mentioned earlier, is Senate Bill 42, which is the revenue classification on the taxpayer bill of rights.

Um if there are additional questions you have about that, please give us a shout.

And then finally, there is one bill that we sent to you all that we are not in agreement on with several people asking for more information.

So I want to just take this opportunity since we have 15 minutes left to talk about Senate Bill 72.

Um, which is Dottie still here, I think they may have left.

Um, but this is a bill that is uh the only agency that has provided feedback is Dottie, and the feedback that they've provided is that it is in line with vision zero goals and would be supportive in helping um to achieve some of our vision zero goals, which is something that is a council priority.

At the same time, is increased penalties, and that is something that council has flagged as an issue of concern.

So when council member Gonzalez Cutier's and I sent this to you, we sent it to you without a recommendation.

And the reason we sent it to you without a recommendation is because we don't really know what to do here, and we really want your feedback, and we don't feel like it's fair to direct council members or recommend to council members in any way, shape, or form on this one because there are they're both important priorities, and in this particular case they're competing priorities.

Um, but we would I think really love to um get council member feedback on this to see is this something that we want to support.

Dottie has asked us to support it in furtherance of um the vision zero goals, or is this something that we just want to stay out of and we want to monitor, which is fine too, or is this something that because it is increased penalties, we feel really strongly about it and we want to say no, um, and come out and oppose.

So I feel like this one is right up there with SB 70 that we just talked about.

Uh, I'm not sure we're gonna get to a place where council members are going to agree, let alone um the mayor's office, city agencies, and council to a place where we can take an official city and county of Denver position, but we wanted to at least bring it to you all, present that to you, um, and kind of open it up for discussion or questions if you have any and get kind of feedback on that.

Council member Gonzalez Gutierrez, did I miss anything there or say anything that needs to get fixed?

No, I think you're you're great.

Um, this one is split like right now down the middle.

It's split down the middle.

Yeah, I don't have anything else.

Questions or thoughts from council members on this?

All right.

Well, with that, I think we are um there are a couple of items on so um, no, there aren't any items on consent.

Look at that.

There aren't any items on consent today.

Fantastic.

Um, well, thank you all so much.

We really appreciate the work of the lobbying team and all that you guys are doing um to help us.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thanks for joining us.

We'll see you in March.

Thank you both.