Governance Committee Meeting: Prevailing Wage Clarification & State Legislative Update - April 21, 2026
Governance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting: April 21, 2026
The Governance and Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the Denver City Council met on April 21, 2026, to consider a clarification of the prevailing wage ordinance, receive a state legislative update, and approve consent items. The committee voted 6-0-1 to advance the prevailing wage clarification bill to full council, and discussed positions on several state bills, including the PUC sunset, RTD reform, and land use legislation.
Consent Calendar
- Council Resolution 26-0516: Approved by consent to amend a contract with The Remy Corporation for Workday platform services, extending the end date to November 15, 2028, with no change to contract capacity.
- Council Resolution 26-0548: Approved by consent to appoint Peter Whiteneck to the Civil Service Commission.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Susan Powers (Urban Ventures): Expressed support for both prevailing wage and affordable housing, stating they are not mutually exclusive. She estimated a 3% cost increase for the Warren Village project based on contractor feedback, and suggested that city funds could be directed to soft costs (e.g., design, permits) not subject to prevailing wage to avoid raising construction costs.
- Jonathan Capelli (Neighborhood Development Collaborative): Raised concerns about increased costs, administrative burdens, and a competitive disadvantage compared to neighboring counties. He noted that the lack of time to study the impact and urged a path that balances labor equity and affordability.
Discussion Items
- Action Item 26-0542 – Prevailing Wage Ordinance Clarification: Councilmember Amanda Sawyer presented the ordinance, which restructures existing language for clarity without changing substantive provisions. She explained that the dispute arose from uncertainty about whether prevailing wage applies to private projects on private land receiving city funds, particularly in affordable housing. She referenced a city attorney memo stating the language was unclear. Councilmember Stacie Gilmore (via video) provided legislative history, stating that the 2016 council intended the ordinance to cover all city-invested projects, including affordable housing. Council President Amanda Sandoval emphasized the need to balance fair wages with affordable housing needs. Laia Mitchell (Department of Housing Stability) expressed concerns about increased costs and reporting requirements, especially for small projects. Matt Fritzmaur (Denver Labor) noted that residential prevailing wage rates are often near minimum wage and that the Davis Bacon framework is clear. Councilmember Diana Alvidrez shared her construction background, noting that prevailing wage raises costs but also elevates contractor standards. Councilmember Kevin Flynn asked about cost impacts; Susan Powers reiterated the 3% estimate. Clerk and Recorder Paul Lopez (via phone) confirmed the 2016 council’s intent to include prevailing wage on affordable housing. The committee voted to approve the bill for filing.
- State Legislative Update (26-0547): Policy Matters team (Katie Hancock, Jimena Luna, Adam Paul) briefed on legislative priorities. Key items:
- PUC Sunset (SB 26-1326): Denver is in an “amend” position, seeking amendments to allow the city to retain utility data for climate planning. Johnny Rogers (CASR) explained the need for data on energy infrastructure to inform electrification and grid planning.
- RTD Reform (SB 26-150): Denver is in an “amend” position. Councilmembers expressed frustration with the bill’s exclusion of ridership-based representation and the shift to gubernatorial appointments. The bill was on third reading in the Senate; the committee agreed to stay in amend to negotiate for a Denver-designated seat and ridership criteria.
- Land Use Bills (HB 1308 and HB 1114): Denver is in “oppose” on both. HB 1308 (lot splitting) was rescheduled to April 30; HB 1114 (minimum lot sizes) remains scheduled for April 23. Community Planning and Development recommended opposition due to implementation challenges.
- Budget Updates: The long bill (HB 1410) and orbital bills passed the House and Senate, with conference committee meetings scheduled. Bills impacting local government included the transfer of $130 million from Proposition 123 (affordable housing fund) to balance the budget, elimination of the general fund transfer to the multimodal transportation fund (affecting RTD capital projects), and a reduction in marijuana tax distributions to local governments (estimated $1.3 million annual loss for Denver).
- Traffic Safety Near Schools (HB 1318): Denver is in “amend” position; DOTI noted additional administrative burdens but supported the intent.
Key Outcomes
- Prevailing Wage Clarification (26-0542): Approved for filing by a vote of 6-0-1 (Torres absent). The bill will proceed to full council with a recommendation to allow a transition period for existing projects and flexibility to direct city funds to soft costs not subject to prevailing wage.
- State Positions: The committee maintained an “amend” position on the PUC sunset bill and RTD reform bill, and an “oppose” position on land use bills HB 1308 and HB 1114. The committee will continue to monitor and adjust positions as the legislative session progresses (22 days remaining).
- Next Steps: The Policy Matters team will not present in May due to the legislative wrap-up, but will return in June for a full review. Councilmembers were encouraged to sign up to testify on state bills, particularly HB 1114.
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. Good morning. It is Tuesday, April 21st, 2026. This is the governance and intergovernmental relations committee of Denver City Council. My name is Paul Cashman. I represent District 6 and serve as vice chair of this committee. I'm in this seat because our chair, Councilman Sawyer will be presenting the first item on our agenda today. All right, hearing none, we'll welcome them as they check in. And before we get started, I will start with introductions to my left. Councilwoman Gosala Gooster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Serena Gonzalez Gutierrez, one of your council members at large. Good morning, everyone in Manisandville, North West Denver District. Good morning, Amanda Sorry, District Five. I was like, do I know yet? I don't know. Good morning, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4. Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2. Well, welcome everybody. As I said, we'll start with uh the change to the DRMC regarding prevailing wage, uh, followed up with uh a legislative update on uh what's happening at the State House. We have a couple of items on consent that if they don't get pulled off during this meeting, we will move forward. Uh with that, uh Councilwoman Sawyer, the floor is yours. Well, thank you very much. Um so today we're here to talk about um a very straightforward change to the prevailing wage ordinance. Um so here's our agenda. Um just as a little bit of background, the auditor's office has enforced the prevailing wage ordinance since 1950. Um so it's been around a long time. Um there were updates in 2001, 2008, and then significant updates into 2016 and 2023. Um what those updates did was clarify the scope, strengthen it, and then we in 2023 we moved enforcement from um our Office of Human Resources to Denver labor in the auditor's office. Um the goal of prevailing wage is to ensure that the government, because we're very large, very powerful, and have a lot of money, um, doesn't feel like it sometimes, but that is perception, right? Um we want to make sure that we are not negatively influencing regional wages um by requiring so we require that prevailing wages get paid um on city invested projects because we want to make sure that uh we're not sort of destabilizing the market. So that's kind of the purpose of the prevailing wage ordinance in general. Um a little bit of kind of 2016 background. Um so it uh the prevailing wage applies to work performed on city land, paid for by city funds, and is consistent with the federal Davis Bacon Act. Um so in 2016, and we have two council members who were here in 2016, so they can talk about this better than I can. Um, it improved processes and kind of removed outdated references and then clarified the scope of the prevailing wage. And the auditor's office created a working group, had an entire um conversation with industry experts, um, you know, trade union unions, etc. Um, to make sure that stakeholders were at the table for this conversation. So um a little aside here, over the last couple of weeks, I have been talking to former council members who were here in 2016 to sort of ask and establish establish the um a clear understanding for me of the legislative history of kind of what went on during that time. That you can see the video, it's on Legistar. You can go back and take a look at it. I did. Um it's really interesting. Every single council member I spoke to personally, um, said exact almost exactly the same thing, which was I would I said in 2016 when you had these conversations, um, you know, do you remember them and its specifics and what was kind of your intention around what um prevailing wage was meant to do and and whether city projects um where the city was investing dollars on private land were meant to be included in the ordinance. And every single one of them said, I don't really remember that far back, which is totally fair, because if you asked me about what went down in 2020, I wouldn't be able to tell you that either. Um but every single one of them said yes.
openpublica.com