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.

The that their intention was that for private projects where the city is investing dollars, prevailing wage should be paid.

Um so you can see this is actually a slide from the 2016 auditor's office presentation where it also clearly shows prevailing wage applies to work performed on city land or paid for by city funds consistent with the Davis Bacon Act.

Then I talked a little bit about the 2023 update where we really wanted to make sure we were gonna streamline these processes because OHR is uh an independent agency of the city of Denver and has a lot of work on their plate in terms of job classifications and things like that.

And prevailing wage is a really big area.

Um so what we decided to do was move prevailing wage to the auditor's office and uh and so that there could be an independent independent prevailing wage administrator in Denver labor whose entire job it is is to focus on prevailing wage, make determinations.

He uh has this person, it is a he in this role right now, but this person has the authority um to you know make determinations, et cetera.

And then there's a process that's very clear that's set in place for if there is a disagreement where a neutral third we can send we.

The auditor's office, Denver Labor can send um the case to a neutral third-party hearing officer to make a determination on it.

So um none of those processes kind of clearly existed before 2023, and we're really happy with the way that this has been working so far, and I wanna just welcome Matt Fritzmaur, um, who I'm gonna ask to make any comments at the end of my presentation.

Um, but really appreciate you being here.

So there is a kind of a dispute, there's a question that has arisen as to what is happening with Zenver's prevailing wage.

Um, and this is actually there's like a very easy answer for how this happened, right?

So since 2016, the ordinance has clearly applied to projects that are city-owned or leased land and funded in whole or in part by the city.

Um and since at least June of 2018, the city's prevailing wage classification document, which you all have received, um, has made this clear.

Um, however, in June of 2024, there it there was a dispute that arose between the prevailing wage administrator and their interpretation of whether it is private, whether private projects on private land that are receiving city dollars should have prevailing wage.

So this has been going on since June of 2024.

Um we're just gonna clarify it.

Uh several weeks ago, the city attorney's office issued a memo, you have all received that memo, um, and it says sort of two things.

It says um, number one, that the language of the ordinance isn't clear.

So what we are doing here is we haven't added anything, we're just restructuring it so that in the current ordinance it's one long run on sentence, and we're just separating out the pieces of that sentence to make it more clear.

So very straightforward, we haven't changed any of the language at all.

Um the second piece of the memo looks at the legislative history and talks a little bit about the legislative history.

Uh, based on the conversations I've had with council members who were here in 2016, um, the legislative history is pretty clear.

But there is one space where um this law did not apply because it didn't exist in 2016, and that is the affordable housing space, because we didn't have a revenue stream that the city could invest in affordable housing until 2017.

So that conversation was really never had, and that's really where this dispute is coming from, which is totally fair, right?

Um it just we're a big city and things change over time, and this is one of those spaces where it changed, but we have to figure out what to do because we're a city and we have to treat everyone equally.

So that's where kind of the dispute has come from and why we are here in front of you today to just clarify what is going on here.

Um so with that, I am gonna open it up for questions, but I want to just give Denver Labor thank you for being here, Matt.

Um will you introduce yourself and then if you have any comments you want to add?

Yes.

Thank you, Councilmember Matt Fritzmauer, executive director of Denver Labor in the auditor's office.

Um thank you so much for that presentation.

I think the only thing I want to add, it's it's a question I've gotten a few times in the last week or so is this going to make it vastly more difficult for nonprofits who we want to support to build affordable housing.

Um is this going to make it vastly more difficult for nonprofits who we want to support to build affordable housing.

And something a lot of people don't know is that there is a residential classification for wages that applies in the Denver area set by the federal government for Davis Bacon.

It it applies to projects that we haven't done compliance on.

I I think you sent along one example, right?

Um, and and we adopted that classification in 2018, specifically in response to this concern.

Those rates in there are I mean, they're prevailing wage rates for the area, and they are not enormously high.

Fifteen of them are at Denver minimum wage or only a little bit above within a couple of dollars.

And so um we all want to build affordable housing, and we and we want to fund that and make sure it happens, and the system that exists is already well suited to make that possible.

Thank you.

So, yeah, so we're here today um to just uh send the ordinance back through with this clarification that we didn't change the language, but we've changed the structure of the language in the ordinance to clarify.

Um, and then we really um, you know, just want to be very clear that we do not, it is not our intention to raise the cost of affordable housing.

We do not want to raise the cost of affordable housing.

There is a path forward where the cost of affordable housing is not raised.

Um, and so we you know, we're comfortable and confident that we can move forward with this, and um that this is not an either-or offer that we're putting on the table to you, that we can pay prevailing wage on private projects that our city invested, and we can build affordable housing in our city without raising the costs.

And um, I do want to just acknowledge Sue Powers, who um I'm so grateful for all of the um conversation and ranting that she has listened to from me over the last few days, um, because I I think she's really been a huge resource for me in terms of um kind of talking through the potential options and how this could we could move forward with this path, and I think we're all in a really good place on it.

So um thank you very much for that.

Uh and with that, I think we have public comment before we open it up for questions.

Yes, we do.

And before we get to public comment, we do have three people signed up.

Uh welcome, Councilwoman Gilmore is online.

And uh let's see, we'll start public comment with the aforementioned uh Susan Powers.

And if you'll step up to the mic and you'll have two minutes to uh speak.

Thank you.

Uh Susan Powers, um, what else do you want to know?

Uh address or something?

Never mind.

Um so I think this is exactly what what uh councilman Cashman said earlier, which is a clash in values.

I mean, the same, you want both.

You want you want to pay pr uh prevailing wage and you want affordable housing.

And um and you want you want it to happen at the same time.

So it's uh it's it shouldn't be an either-or.

Um so what what we were talking about over the last couple days was like really looking at a project, one that was in the residential category, forced which is four stories or below, and there are a lot of them being built in the city.

Um and I took the one that we were the most familiar with most familiar with in the last year, which was the Warren Village Project on Alameda.

And if we had, and we did not, it wasn't a prevailing wage, it was this conversation was never happened then.

Um it would have added three percent.

I went back to the contractor who is who I think is the most knowledgeable about that particular band of construction, and he said it would cost three percent more.

And when we broke it down, um what he said is that it's true that there's some subcontractors that are paying above that now.

But what's happening is is that when you impose the requirements of the documentation on contractors, a whole bunch of them walk away because they don't want to deal with it.

And then you have a smaller group of people who are bidding on it, and it gets it gets more expensive.

Um that's that was like kind of a um uh a real life experience for all of us to hear of what's going on in the market right now.

Um so if you took the if you took Warren Village, which was had a 30, let's see, 32 million dollar construction cost, and you added three percent to that, you know, it's real money, you know, it's six hundred thousand dollars.

And so what we have talked about was you know, looking at what is it that what other things can you can you um look at in the development stack or the development budget um and say where would the city money go to?

Um the city money in this case is less than 10% of the of the the uh total construction cost, I mean the total development cost, um, still a really important piece of the stack, but it's it's not it's not paying for 50% or 80%, or I think it's 10%.

So we looked at the the soft costs and said, you know, from this point forward, if if all of the city money went towards the design, yeah.

The design, the financing costs, the permit fees, the I mean the long list, the lawyers, the, and then the lawyers, um, and then all of the consultants that are involved with it, they are they're not subject to prevailing wage, and you'd still be able to get an affordable housing project done without it costing any more.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Uh second up on our list is Maloth Basho.

I do not see in the room.

Um third, uh last but not least, Jonathan Capelli.

Uh hi everyone.

Um, I actually thought I hadn't made it any time, so uh glad to be here.

Um Jonathan Pelle Neighborhood Development Collaborative, we're a coalition of affordable housing providers um in Metro Denver.

Um and uh, you know, we haven't had too much time to uh respond or react to this.

Um and understand, you know, sort of the point of what you guys are trying to accomplish with this.

Um I guess there's three things to keep in mind, some of which Sue sort of spoke to.

Um one is just that there is, you know, an increased cost.

We're still working to calculate exactly how much um it is, depending on the size of the project.

Um that increases the um amount of subsidy needed per project.

Um it it either it does one of three things.

It either increases the subsidy needed per project, which means more money requested from the city, or um it means increasing the incomes um in the project in order to pay for that gap, or it means fewer units.

Um so that's one thing to consider.

Um the other is just that um there's also a bit of a comparative thing going on.

Um I haven't been able to look into every single uh uh county uh around uh Denver, but it doesn't seem like any other um communities are doing this.

Um so there's a bit of a um uh sort of a comparative cost for um finding labor um for folks that would that you know could work here in in Denver um uh and deal with a whole bunch of increased administrative costs, et cetera, et cetera, versus working outside of Denver instead.

Um folks um my membership has said that in the past when they've tried to contract uh labor for projects that needed Davis Bacon wages, which I'm using a shorthand for um the prevailing wages of the city would adopt, um it's really difficult to find some of that labor because they don't want to do the administrative um burden of of implementing um those regulations.

So uh there's a lot more we want to say on this.

We've had much time to look into it.

Um we're just hoping that um there's an opportunity to work with you guys to figure out an opportunity a path that maybe does not go um as far down this this this route because it is uh uh a cost, and as Sue said, it puts it pits two different values against each other when we'd like to find a way to make those values work together, labor equity and affordability.

So sorry for going over time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Appreciate that a lot.

Um before I do have several people in the queue, but before we get started with that, um uh for our viewers, can you put a dollar sign to uh prevailing wage as opposed to minimum wage, et cetera.

Yes and no.

Um so I think there are over 180 different classifications under the prevailing wage ordinance, and how much somebody is entitled to be paid depends on the project and its classification.

I mentioned residential earlier.

We have three others, building heavy and highway, and also on the job they're doing.

So a carpenter gets one rate, a common laborer gets another rate, a millright gets another rate.

Um in general, prevailing wages are they're decent wages.

I mean, I I think this law is really based on the idea that the people who are literally building the city with taxpayer dollars should be able to afford to live in the city and thrive in the city.

And so minimum wage is a good first step, I think for a lot of these classifications, prevailing wage, it's a middle class wage.

So uh minimum wage right now hovers in the $20 an hour range.

Um give me a ballpark again.

Is this $50 an hour, $30 an hour?

I understand it it varies.

Yeah, sure.

I I can give you a little bit of information.

The prevailing wage is based on a base rate of pay and then fringe benefits.

And so we calculate the value, the hourly value of fringe benefits, um, thick leave, vacation, health care contributions, 401k, things like that.

Um and all of that entitlement together is the total package.

It's what's called the total package.

There are more than a dozen classifications in the residential category that are between 18, pardon me, 1929, and I think 21 dollars thereabouts.

And then some of the more skilled positions are doing better.

Electricians, for example, their base rate of pay under the residential classification, $33 an hour.

And then the fringe benefits are entitled to 12 to 14 or 15.

So as you get into the jobs that require something like a four-year apprenticeship, the highly skilled work.

The rates get higher, but many of them at this point on an annual basis rise because the minimum wage does.

So as I heard you say before, minimum wage will help you get by prevailing wage may help you build a better life.

Yes, and I think that there's another important component to this, which is many, many, many contractors strive to do the right thing and follow the law.

But we also know that construction is a very high-risk industry.

And so proactive government enforcement is good.

My prevailing wage teams, they aren't just enforcing the prevailing wage.

They're finding misclassification, they're finding overtime violations, no paid sick leave.

We're investigating retaliation that came about on a prevailing wage job site visit.

And so there's this whole slate of wage violations that happens, um, typically not from the general contractor or the first tier subcontractors, but further down that chain of contracting.

Thank you very much.

We'll go to our queue.

Um Councilwoman Gilmore, if you're there, I believe your hand was up earlier.

Well, good morning.

Um sorry to not be there in person, uh, but um want to make sure everybody can hear me.

Yes, you're great.

Oh, very good, thank you.

Um, well, I really appreciate the opportunity um with councilwoman Sawyer um and councilwoman uh Torres um to work on uh the wage theft ordinance um that we've passed in the city and moving it over to Denver Labor, et cetera.

Um but I wanted to give a little bit more legisl legislative intent, history since um, as you know, I was elected to Denver City Council in 2015.

And so um prior to being elected to Denver City Council, I was the executive director of a nonprofit organization that worked with uh the National Park Service with U.S.

Fish and Wildlife to pay uh city kids to work uh outdoors and learn about science and natural resources.

And so I applied for a lot of environmental protection agency uh grants, et cetera.

And so I, before getting elected, was well versed in prevailing wages and Davis Bacon and the requirement to pay those salaries, um, those wages on jobs, especially jobs that are for the government uh because of um our large capacity.

And I want to remind folks that we are talking about the people who build our city, the construction workers who are also very vulnerable to wage theft, which is legislation that all of us have voted on and support, and so um prior to getting elected, I knew well about Davis Bacon and prevailing wage.

And so in 2015, we um started really working with the carpenters, who they were last night at Denver City Council, filled Par Widener, uh, to talk about advocating for good wages and rightful wages that are not exorbitant.

And so it it, you know, these are wages that are through the federal government, are approved by government, state, we all follow it.

And so for Denver to not follow that, uh that is super concerning because that is not our value.

And so um in 2016, uh Councilman Lopez, then, now clerk and recorder Lopez, uh, brought me in and said, you know, hey, you need to learn about wage theft, you need to understand how hard it is for workers in Denver who um, you know, um live here, who send their kids to DPS school and are really struggling, and we need to create a space to listen to them.

So we started monthly meetings around wage theft and how to uh address this issue.

And so that was back in 2016, 2017.

Um, and then Clerk Lopez, um, his time was um getting short, he was termed out, and so um in 2019, when councilwoman Sawyer got elected and councilwoman Torres got elected in 2019, I brought them in to the conversation with the carpenters, with all of the unions in Denver with all of the workers to talk about this issue and how hard it was for them to even get fair wages to even get paid because somebody would have them do work and they'd work for two weeks, they'd work for a month, and then they'd up and leave, and they couldn't find them.

And so these are real issues and real stories of people in our community.

And so I want to remind for the record that on the council with counsel with Clerk Lopez was myself, councilwoman Kenich, councilwoman Ortega.

So any question about the legislative intent not requiring affordable housing projects with city dollars not having to pay prevailing wage is untrue, and I am a legislator, and for the executive branch in the administration to be insinuating this is very untrue and false because I lived the intent, and I remember I remember it all, crystal clear.

And so I've also asked Clerk Lopez to hop on to clear the record um on this requirement.

And I'm happy to work with any housing organizations, nonprofits to help fill that gap, um, but wanted to give a little bit of the history.

And so thank you for um a little bit of time from um an elephant on the uh council, but I think it's important for the record, so we don't have to do this on the floor.

Um we can do committee work and committee.

Thank you all.

Thank you for your context.

Uh first up in questions, uh Council President Sandoval.

Thank you.

Um just want to say thank you for the work on um all of this.

And Sue, thank you for your work and looking into the questions.

I think both things can be true.

We do want fair wages for our workers, 100%.

And we also want to, we are we all know we're in affordable housing crisis.

We are.

I'm living it day after day after day.

I think every single person around this table understands that.

So is there anyone from host who could speak to what we talked about?

Absolutely.

Hi, awesome.

So what I'm to for host, right?

It's gap financing, it's part of the capital stack.

And what we'd have to do is figure out the back in on invoicing on what would actually have to pay labor, um, what would not.

Is that accurate?

Part of what so I'm Laia Mitchell from the Department of Housing Stability, thank you.

Um, I think part of what where this clarification has come from is when and when it does not apply to projects.

And so I think part of what host is concerned about is the increased cost, um, including that reporting requirement.

So the way that invoices are done and and when and when it doesn't apply.

Um and so, for example, when we invest in, for example, soft costs versus hard costs when we invest when the dollars are going, you know, we there's a part of the way that we make investments that are really in exchange for affordability requirements.

And so we're not directly, you know, designating funds for for different components of the project.

Um I think part of what we need clarity moving forward is really where it applies and where it doesn't.

For example, when we do service funding for a project, does that require prevailing wage?

If we um if we allocate the allowance of private activity bonds, does that kick in?

Does land acquisition kick in?

Or is it really are we focusing on when we're when host dollars are being allocated via a contractor to construction costs, in which case they're actually reimbursing us for construction costs and having clarity about like is that when we're talking about prevailing right and absolutely right.

So it's it's a great question, and I think it's a good point.

And I think that that's that's exactly the point, right?

Davis Bacon is very clear on what the 185 job classifications are um that are covered under prevailing wage.

And so there's the our law, which has been here since 1950, um, has it is very clear that we follow Davis Bacon, right?

We follow the four classifications, we follow the 185 job classifications under those four classifications.

Bless you.

So they're invoicing for work that is not covered work, Davis Bacon and prevailing wage ordinance does not apply.

That's it's very straightforward.

There's actually no drama here at all.

Davis Bacon is real clear.

So I think the um the knee jerk reaction that I have experienced from the affordable housing community is um fair because it is, you know, something that needs to be discussed because there is this gap because it didn't exist in 2016 when this when the law was updated.

But at the same time, there is a very reasonable, very straightforward path here that gets us both prevailing wages on construction and on whether it's a city owned project or whether we just invest in it, and affordable housing based on uh invoicing for costs that are not covered work that are not covered under Davis Bacon.

So my question back to you is does that provide clarity?

I mean, I think it's complicated because we're invoicing, right?

You guys are on the back end of invoicing, but it seems like if there was clarity amongst the affordable housing developers, like, hey, so when I was talking to Councilwoman Sawyer yesterday, I was talking about environmental, all the surveying costs, all of the things that come to build an affordable house, a project, any project.

Does that provide you all clarity?

Because what I think both things can be true.

Again, I'm gonna say this.

We just provided a developer or whoever it is, 70 million dollars of tax dollars to build a sock a soccer stadium.

I think that should have prevailing wage, period, in stop.

It should have prevailing wage.

Now, when it comes to building 20 units of affordable housing, some of it should have prevailing wage, 100%.

I agree with that.

If you're building, if you're a drywaller, all of these things where we've had wage theft in our communities of color, and at the same time, I believe that we could be able to have loans and still be able to finance the loans to be able to have gap funding because we're not the primary financer, we're a gap funding to get the project to the finish line and to have deed restricted affordable units.

So, what does it need to take for you all to get comfortable?

Because it feels like this law has been on the books for a long time.

And for us to not have clarity, do you need like a like a city attorney to go through all of those hundred jobs and say, hey, this is when you invoice towards prevailing wage and not, or how can we work with that, Matt?

Yeah, I so I I do want to just reiterate what council member Sawyer said about the classifications that aren't included.

So you mentioned soft costs.

Um, you know, there's no architecture classification that we enforce.

It's not the people that the law is concerned with.

In terms of getting clarity, um, if if you all have a few minutes to talk after, I'll give you my cell phone number, and we can work our way through these piece by piece.

And and we're like we really want to be partners with you.

Um we just want to be part of your process and not have ours bypassed.

Yeah, absolutely understood.

And I would just say, like, I think we very much understand the interconnection between living wages and our you know, fair wages for um our community members and the need for affordable housing.

You know, some of those workers may be living in affordable housing, right?

Like we it's it's a holistic system and we definitely want to look at it from that point of view.

I think um some of what might be challenging, and we can talk through sort of when it applies and doesn't, I think as read and currently where it says financing and affordable in financing in projects or financed by the city, that's where there's just there is uncertainty.

And we have sought um interpretation from the city attorney's office, and I think there's been some um conflicting views, right, about what that is.

So I do think we need to maybe take a little more time and make sure that we're really clear in what goes into the ordinance so that six months from now or a year from now, we're not sort of having this conversation again about what we did if we follow the ordinance correctly or not.

So that yeah, I just I want to just go ahead.

I would also think financing means that they're going to invoice us for that loan, not financing I bought a house and I have to suddenly pay my real estate agent like wages.

It's it's not in the law.

I mean, I think have you read the law for the wages, not our this law, the other law that literally calls out all of the labor.

Have you have we?

I mean, I've looked at it.

I haven't, I don't I don't know the categories to the degree that the auditors' office does.

And I think that's the hard part.

Yeah.

Is that we haven't had you all sit down with the city attorney with the um auditor's office and clearly delineate that because I think once you see that, I think it it will work.

Because you're right, some the affordable housing we're building, in my personal opinion, is for these workers a lot of time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, and I will just respond and say, like, again, I want to be very clear.

We're not changing a word of this ordinance.

This ordinance has existed since 2016.

All we're doing is changing the structure of it because the way it's currently written in the DRMC is one long run-on sentence, and the way it is written under our proposed um is just to break apart that sentence into very clear uh lines so that the one piece of the city attorney's uh um interpretation in the memo we received is taken off the table.

She said it wasn't clear the way it was written.

We disagree, but you know what?

That's okay.

We can reasonable people can disagree all the time.

We're the legislative branch of government, we just go in and fix the structure.

No big deal, right?

Um, I think that uh the challenge here is that um the city attorney's office is um executing on the direction of the city attorney, and that is not the direction that city council in 2016 went, it's not the direction city council in 2023 went, and it's not the direction that this city council um feels strongly about.

So here we are, because we're the legislative branch of government, and this is what we do, right?

Two things in that memo to address.

Number one, unclear lack of clarity in the plain language.

Great.

So now there is no lack of clarity in the plain language that has existed since 2016 and was an edit to an ordinance from 1950, and two, the um legislative history, which does have a gap based on the fact that this law was updated in 2016, and we did not have an affordable housing fund until 2017, so this wasn't an issue that existed before.

So, like uh I I think that the um the concerns um that host is sharing are valuable and real concerns and and reasonable.

I also think that they have had this information since 2024.

It's 2026.

So there were two years worth of time to sort out what this looked like and educate themselves.

If they have not done it, that's not something I can control that's a different branch of government than the one I'm in.

What can we control as Denver City Council members?

We can control fixing the language so it's clear and clarifying the legislative intent.

That's what we're doing here today.

Yeah, so thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would just ask that you all before this comes to the floor, just have a like meeting so that on the floor.

I agree with Councilman Gilmore that we don't want to do committee work on the in the on the floor, but it would be nice for you all to have conference and figure this out with your attorneys because I I believe both can be true.

I really do think that we can get through this, and I think it is a really needed aspect of of what we have to govern in our laws, and it's part of my values is paying people living wages 100%.

Yeah.

One more sort of request is just that we have projects who are in our pipeline who have accepted or are in the process of accepting host funding with an understanding of kind of our current operating.

And so if there's a way to build into here either some time or a window before it becomes effective, so that we're not sort of having commitments in place with existing partners who um are not in turn are not planning for an added expense.

I think that we are happy to talk about that and um happy to like loop up with you know everyone and um when something is in committee, our bar for voting on it is is this ready to be considered by the full council, right?

That doesn't mean that we can't make any changes after it goes through committee.

Um it just means that we need to have a conversation with our fellow council members about any changes that do get made, which we're happy to do.

So um I don't think we have a problem with that at all.

I think I feel like we shouldn't even be here today.

I feel like this should have been a conversation between host, the mayor's office, and the auditor's office, and not gotten city council involved.

But after the memo that came two weeks ago, um there is really only one way to fix this, and it's for us to just do what we're doing today.

So that's unfortunate.

I can't control that that piece, the all those moving pieces.

What it can control is what we're here doing today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh, next up, councilwoman Alfreds, and then uh councilman Flynn.

Thank you, committee chair.

Um, I appreciate this being brought.

It's something that's been on my mind because my background is construction, and as a small business, we had to pay prevailing wages on everything, and I think it does make things more expensive.

It also elevates you as a contractor to act in a higher and better way.

And it was very frustrating to have to compete with other construction companies that don't hold those values that don't pay those wages.

And um, so I think it will make our housing more expensive, and we need to think and talk about that, but that is a reality, and I think it makes our roads more expensive, it makes our sidewalks more expensive.

But isn't that why this was put in place in the first place because those taxpayer dollars are going to part of the reason we talk about this is because of the economic development that these projects also give and those working um those jobs that are able to be given because we're providing these, and so I'm curious about um how another thing I just wanted to uplift is that, for example, with the Jewel Bridge in my district, we accepted federal funding on that bridge, and then the costs went up.

So I think that is something that will be anticipated.

So just bringing that up, and then for workers to have some stability.

So it's not if I'm working across the street at Warren Village, I'm making this dollar amount, but if I'm putting out the sidewalks in front of it, uh I'm gonna make this amount, and I think that has been really hard on the construction workforce.

Um, another issue um is that there are bad actors out there, and I think you spoke to that.

Um, and a lot of them are in residential, and those contractors that say I'm not gonna bid on this project because it's too much work, are saying I'm not gonna bid on this project because I don't want to pay, I don't want anybody checking on how much I'm gonna pay.

Um, and so I want to uplift that as well and validate that.

And then lastly, I will just say that there is some frustration with the process, even in the projects that we have um prevailing wages already.

One of the things, and maybe that's something we can work to clarify.

So, for example, my background is concrete construction, and so you have laborers, you have carpenters, you have concrete masons, you have iron workers.

And one of the things that could be a very unexpected cost is when you have a laborer on a job site, for example, moving rebar, and all of a sudden they're classified as an iron worker, which is not the same.

So I would ask that that be part of the consideration looking at this is how are we classified so that somebody that's dedicated their life to learning a trade like iron work that's an iron worker isn't getting the same wages as a laborer who just walked on the job looking for a job for the day.

So that's the only one thing that I would really like to see if this could help address our it looks like you might have a response to that.

Judson, I think your experience would be really valuable.

We have, I think it's around a 70-page clarification document that that goes through everything and and how we interpret and enforce and evaluate, and I'm happy to send that to you if you don't have it, and I would um I think we would all really value sitting down with you and hearing more about these concerns because of your experience before you were on council.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you, committee.

Thank you.

Uh, just quick time check.

Uh I'd like to call a stop uh at uh uh 20 after, if possible.

This is about seven minutes.

Councilmember Flynn.

Thank you, Chair.

Um you said during the presentation uh that there was a forward to mean to address the the uh division between the two values that we're dealing with here.

And can you elaborate a little bit on what the floor is?

Yeah, so I think Sue's testimony really elaborated on it.

Um and so I think you know, Sue mentioned this to me yesterday, and I I think it was a uh a really um tough but fair path forward.

Um that if the city is not paying for covered work, then the prevailing wage ordinance doesn't apply, right?

So if there are um spaces where uh host can invest where it's not covered work, then that is a that is a fair balance to give us both moving forward, right?

Um because if we're not paying for the construction fees, which is where prevailing wages apply, then prevailing wage does not apply, but we're we're still in within the confines of the law.

And I think that that's um not perfect.

I think that there are some challenges with that, but I also think that we don't want to set up a situation where we have competing values.

And so if that is how we move forward in a way that makes sense um to not raise the cost of construction and not um uh you know diminish the ability to um build affordable housing in our community and also ensures that we are paying people the wages that they deserve, and also recognizing that the best way to get people out of poverty is to pay them.

Um then I think that we are in exactly the the right imperfect spot to move forward with this.

I like that.

Uh Sue had mentioned that uh the project that you looked at Warren Village, it was about a three percent delta then.

I'm wondering if we have a view to some of our other projects and what the impacts because it it would obviously would vary.

Yeah, so if you get as granular as you were talking about separating Sue's the expert on this one, so I'm gonna I'm gonna let her answer that.

Um that was based on a conversation with a contract.

Oh, I'm sorry, Susan Powers with Urban Ventures.

Um that was based on uh a conversation I had with a contractor who is doing building probably half of the affordable housing developments that are going on right now.

Yes.

Yep, it was across the projects.

Um and um and that's you know, that's basically the data we used.

And then and then we you know, we compared it for with with what the actual impact would be.

Okay.

So and your experience is similar.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, we have we have another project where that's yeah, one that's that's not finalized yet, but it's about three percent.

Okay, yeah.

All right.

Can I just anything there?

Sure.

Um just from a host, we did a little bit of um, we didn't have time to do like a deep dive in the impact, but we looked at two different projects, and one was a three percent impact and the other was a nine percent impact.

And part of the higher um impact are projects that are in the heavy or the building category where the wages increase so those those that are five stories or higher seem that they would have a uh higher sort of impact or you know, wage jump.

Um, and then our small projects who are sort of nonprofit community-based groups that maybe don't have the reporting component, have a more of an impact from the sort of compliance side or the compliance reporting side.

And I will just um it follow up to that to say I also spoke with Bill Mosier about this, um, who it builds large developments, and so huge shout out to Bill sort of uh walk me through what this looks like on on the much larger development perspective, right?

And this would be um things, bit uh construction that fits into the um larger classification as opposed to the residential classification.

So um there it prevailing wage two different classifications based on the size of the job and and the the size of the job also indicates who's gonna be bidding on it, right?

So when we're looking at um that commercial construction rate, we are looking at very large construction firms um that have the ability to and be essentially build those kinds of things into their proformers from the very beginning.

So um there is a and and are moving across a number of different projects to be able to sort of absorb those costs in different areas.

So there's it's a great question.

There's sort of two different classifications of what we're talking about here.

And when we're looking at those commercial ones, um, I think that's a totally different story because we're not we're not um working with the same people, right?

The same companies as opposed to the the residential classification ones where this is real, right?

These are they do not have multiple crop projects across the city that um they can absorb each other's costs and things like that.

So our focus is more on the resin is on the residential side because that is a that is a different um calculation and conversation versus those larger commercial projects and the people who build those.

Right.

Thank you.

Um Clerk Lopez has joined us.

I'd like to give him a couple of minutes to get his perspective.

Uh Clerk Lopez, can you hear me?

Deal.

Floor is yours, sir.

Yeah, uh apologize for not being able to be there in person for the background noise, but uh um, you know, as to uh applying, you know, my time as a councilman uh when this uh came in front of us, you know, my uh the intent and the discussion and support that I uh gave for the affordable housing uh policy was uh in fact to try to try to try to combat uh poverty in this city, right?

Um and part of that equation is making sure that we not only have affordable housing but have uh a livable wage because we wouldn't have an affordable housing crisis if we had a living wage for folks all throughout Denver.

And so prevailing wage was a was a big part of that in making sure that the two coexist and that affordable housing is consumed is built, not exempting prevailing wage, but including prevailing wage, including the practices that you know we we wanted to see help elevate folks out of poverty in Denver, keep people in their homes, keep people in Denver.

I appreciate you taking the time, Mr.

Clerk, and uh appreciate your perspective.

Um further questions uh from council.

This is an action item.

Uh if someone would like to add anything on that, please.

If I may, um I mean, I I I think it's important to say out loud that what hosts does and what we do, it's all anti-poverty work, right?

You you referenced an interconnected system.

I completely agree with you.

And so if what we're concerned about are increased affordable housing costs, I hear that.

Um, but it's also increased wages for working class people, many of whom are low wage.

And so I just want to stress the human element here of when people make more money, it's the most effective way to make them less economically insecure.

And they're healthier and they're happier and they're less anxious, they can go to the doctor, they can have stability, they're less likely to commit suicide.

And so this is money that, in our opinion, is money well spent, even if it's going to raise the cost of these small um affordable housing projects by three percent.

It will have an extraordinary impact on in the next few years, thousands of workers in Denver.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

So I would like to move this uh Council President Sandoval.

Um seconded by uh councilmember Flynn.

Uh any need uh for a vote?

Uh no need for a vote.

We will pass this on to the full council.

Thank you.

Um as we transition for our state ledge update.

Um Councilwoman Sawyer, are you staying down that end or you coming up here?

Yeah, I'll come back.

You can thank you for covering for me, Vice Chair.

Um, um, for the second part of our uh Gov Committee today, we're gonna do our um state legislative update.

And so really appreciate Policy Matters team being here.

We don't have the full policy matters team here today because um the RTD bill is on thirds in the Senate right now as we speak, and so they're there doing what we pay them to do.

So um really appreciate you guys being here.

Do you want to take a second to introduce yourselves?

Yeah, of course.

Hi everyone, Katie Hancock with the Policy Matters team.

Uh Jimena Luna, also with Policy Matters.

Adam Paul with the mayor's office.

Fantastic.

Um why don't you guys take it away?

So I'll go ahead and just kick us off.

Uh Madam Chair, Councilmembers, as always, thank you.

Just a quick reminder.

Um, as our um committee works, we have two council members, council members Sawyer and Gizal Scutiers, and we have two members from the mayor's team, myself, Tim Hoffman, and Becky Studemeyer does an incredible job supporting us.

So as we start to move in to uh where we're at so far this session, we have about 22 days left, so things are starting to move fast.

Um over 665 bills, resolutions, other things have been introduced in the cities ran through about 175 different bills through the agencies through our processes.

To give you a little bit of flavor, in 2025, I think we engaged on about 80 bills total, plus or minus.

You can see where we're at today where total of 53 bills, 19 in support, 10 in opposition, 14 amend for monitor and position ended as six, and that's where we've been able to see different outcomes to to amend bills or work with bills to remove those and have them in a better spot to where the city wouldn't have negative effects.

This slide here kind of shows more in depth the different areas where we have engaged on the support side and the monitor side, and then the amend side.

And when we go into amend as a quick note, the uh HB 2601001, also known as home former Yig B did pass and was signed by the governor on 325.

Last slide will show kind of the opposition piece.

And I think as you start to go down this list, we've been pretty judicious in what we've opposed.

And as you can see, some of these ones that we have opposed have actually died.

And there's a new one, uh SB 26062, I think, died yesterday uh in committee.

So these are uh we we take it pretty seriously when we're gonna come out in opposition, so they have severe impacts on the city, and I think we've been pretty successful.

And then though those six that I mentioned, these are the ones where we've ended positions, we've been able to get clarifications, legislative declarations, and certain amendments to help put these bills in a better spot.

So we're here today.

Oh, before I jump there, we have our council only.

Yes, uh I'll just quickly cover these.

Um, as you all know, these are um bills that council has taken position on on our own.

Um, and we've made this uh apparent to the Denver delegation, and so we have House Bill 1005, which is the worker protection collective bargaining.

The bill eliminates the requirement under um the Labor Peace Act to conduct a second election to form a union.

Um, and it also requires employees and employers and employees to bargain in good faith.

That bill currently just passed Senate appropriates this morning and was referred to the committee of the whole for second reading in the Senate.

So it's in its second chamber.

This was the same bill that last session the governor vetoed.

Um it passed both chambers last year, and then it was vetoed by the governor.

So we're I guess anticipating what will happen next on that if it makes it through the Senate.

Um the other bill, Senate Bill 42 has to do with TABER, the taxpayers' bill of rights.

Um, this bill is really trying to um keep some of our tax money in the state's budget by changing how certain funds are classified under TABER.

Um this is it's a it's and it's still in its first chamber.

It just passed Senate appropriations this morning and was also referred to the committee of the whole um for second reading.

So it still has a path, it still has some time um to get through.

Uh, and I think folks are really hopeful for that because that will help um hopefully create some relief when it comes to essential services that um we're they're cutting a lot, right, this year um because of the state budget.

So that's those two bills.

Thank you, counselor.

All right, so now we'll jump into a couple of bills of interest.

We have basically uh 1326 and then uh Senate Bill 150.

1326 is the PUC Sunset, which looks to reauthorize the PUC for an additional 11 years, taking it into September of 2037.

And uh on a high level, the summary of kind of this legislation is that deals with governance administration, energy policy, uh affordability, they also regulate ride shares and uh contract and common carriers, rail and transit telecommunications, and small operators and national uh natural gas and other kind of entities.

So this is a big bill, and something I think we're somewhat excited about because we have uh an opportunity through our CASER folks to look at some amendments.

And so I'll turn to our lobby team if you have anything else you want to add to this, and then we have our CASR uh team here to give a highlight of of some of the amendments if that's okay.

Just want to add that we have shared our um requested amendments with sponsors, and we are working to um get a meeting um to discuss uh the Denver um requests.

Um it is scheduled to be up in committee later this week, so we are hoping that we'll be able to sit down with the sponsors before then.

Try that so before we move on to our next uh sorry, my brain is fried here before we move on to our next slide.

Slide, that's the word I was looking for, you guys.

Um why don't we just do questions on this one and talk about this one?

And Johnny, did you want to add anything from the CASAR perspective?

And if you want to come up to the table and or if you want to stand at the microphone, I don't care either way, you're good.

But um will you please just introduce yourself and kind of tuck us through what HAZAR is on this?

This one is confusing and complicated a little bit for us because we don't do this all day every day.

So I think it'd be really valuable to just sort of talk through what it is we're asking for as a city and why we're in amend.

Absolutely.

Uh hi everyone, Jonathan Rogers, call me Johnny, uh Deputy Executive Director of Denver's Office of Climate Action Sustainability and Resiliency.

Uh the reason why we're engaged on this one, you know, the Public Utilities Commission is our primary venue to help influence uh Denver's energy mix.

You know, we want to make sure that we're provided with affordable, reliable, and increasingly pollution-free energy where and when it's needed to support sustainable economic development and uh the livelihood of all uh Denverites.

Uh the PC sunset reauthorization, you know, that being the entity through which we're able to participate, gain access to information and help to influence uh the nature of the system.

It provides the opportunity where we can make administrative adjustments to different rules and procedures that help to govern that access for franchisees and other interveners in PUC proceedings and what information we can gain access to and ultimately retain.

Uh through participation in those proceedings, we gain access to certain public interest utility data, such as where RXL Energy facilities located that serve Denver and that exists within our right-of-way.

How is energy flowing through those systems?

You know, when are we hitting peak capacity on substations or feeders or transformers?

What are the age of their pipelines or things that are delivering uh gas to customers so that we can estimate when might they be due for replacement?

And how do we make sure we don't replace those systems with things that can continue to petu it perpetuate the use of fossil fuels so that we can have a managed transition to those affordable and reliable and non-polluting energy options?

Now, at the end of certain proceedings related to distribution system planning for the electric grid or gas infrastructure planning on the gas system, we'll gain access to highly confidential maps or other uh very valuable pieces of information that we are legally only permitted to use for the purposes of that proceeding, and then we delete and we no longer have access to.

So we can't say work internally to do an assessment and look ahead for the next 10 years of hey, which neighborhoods are due for gas line replacements that we can target with our climate protection dollars, climate protection fund dollars to support in pursuit of electrification or other alternatives.

Uh so we're engaging in these proceedings effectively with one tie behind our back because we gain access, and then we have to rescind that access, and we can't use it to be ready uh for the next cycle.

Uh our amendments relate to exactly that.

If we want to be able to retain this information that Denver already gets access to by being a franchisee and a participant uh in these proceedings.

Now we have engaged with other local jurisdictions, uh city of Boulder, County of Boulder, Colorado Communities for Climate Action, Colorado Municipal, and others, and we've all recognized the same problem.

Um, we hope to take it one step further, where simply the act of being a franchisee or being one of these local government entities should provide access to that same data.

You know, we think that you know, if a government is trusted to gain access to this information by being a participant at the PUC, why shouldn't we have access to it to enable system planning and coordination with our utility providers so we can make informed decisions together that affect our constituents and help to support the provision of uh reliable utility service?

Um that's what we're hoping to accomplish uh with this.

I think the main question we get asked is why doesn't Excel just give you this data, or why don't you get it through the franchise?

I assure you we have asked.

I assure you we have requested it through the franchise, but if they say no, we don't want to give it to you.

Our only recourse would be to say, well, we're not going to sign the franchise agreement and blow up the whole deal.

That is a decidedly very, very bad outcome for the city.

We have far more to gain by being a franchisee with access to the PUC process than we do holding ourselves hostage when we have alternative means to gain access to this information.

Uh and this would be one such opportunity uh through our our partnership with the folks uh at the legislature to continue to make sure that us and others uh have the information that we need to make informed decisions.

Everybody get all that.

Um thank you, Johnny.

That was really like you summed up an incredibly complicated um stance in like a minute and a half.

So you're amazing.

Thank you for doing that.

Um questions on this one before we move on.

Okay, we'll keep you posted.

Um but right now we are in amend and CASA is leading conversations about amendments, and we really appreciate all the work that you're doing on that.

So thank you.

Reach out any time.

Awesome.

Appreciate your help.

Madam Chair, I think this is the one you really wanted to get to.

So you know, as we've we've talked about and we talked about this last year, and and we're back here this year in this piece of legislation that's come forward with uh kind of taking um recommendations from the RTD Accountability Committee.

We had a little presentation and and trying to implement those statutorily and and um few of the high level on this would be disability services study, RTD board redistricting, RTU board composition.

And so it's certainly uh a polarizing and hot topic for the metro area and for the district, as well for the city and county of Denver, because this has a lot of impacts to the city.

Um as of yesterday, I think there were eight amendments that passed.

Uh we'd been engaged in in some of that process, and uh just to to share if I might the the three kind of thing main ones we moved ridership, which the ridership provision would have based um the district drawing upon ridership, which would have enhanced leadership potentials for Denver as we have the largest amount of ridership investment infrastructure.

Second one was there were two Dr.

Cog seats that would then recommend uh people to the governor's office for approval.

One of those seats was pulled, and then I think the third one came through our discussions, especially through your input council on a review or a sunset provision that went through uh at 15 years.

So that's where we're at, and we certainly have our experts here at the table, and and all of you as experts who've been engaged and um have been a part of this for a long time.

So, madam chair, happy to turn this over to you to kind of guide the discussion on on where we want to go and how we'd like to go.

No, um, David, do you want to take a minute and introduce yourself and just talk through Dottie's perspective on this?

Sure.

Uh David Kretzinger, transit director for the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Um, similar to um what the mayor's office said, we're we're in current uh amend strategy.

Um we'd still like to see a stronger, clear connection uh to ridership because uh we do have the majority of the ridership in the in the region and have uh representation that's more assured um for for Denver uh by having one of the Dr.

Cox seats be a Denver seat.

Moby, do you want to guys want to where we're at where it's gonna go?

Add anything?

Yeah, so it is scheduled to be up on uh third readings today.

The um Senate brought a bunch of build up on second uh special orders, second reading, so it should be up in the next I would say probably half hour.

Um we do expect it to pass on the Senate floor, and then after that it would move over to the House.

Um so we are working on engaging um members of our House delegation on our concerns and what we would like to see come out of this legislation.

Yeah, and I really appreciate that.

I will just say um I know it is there are really the council would like to move to oppose, right?

Um on this.

I think that there is the real possibility that this bill is gonna pass, and so um staying an amend to ensure that we're at the table having conversations, especially in the House as things continue to move, um, is really really valuable.

So I really wanted to say thank you to all of you council members for um you know all of the phone calls that we had late last week to agree to be willing to stay and amend um as we continue to have these conversations.

Um I think we'll see what happens, and we can to reassess like five times a day every day about this, um, which is great.

Uh so we'll keep you posted on what comes next, but I do, you know, I do think it is valuable for us um, at least for the moment to stay in amend and see if we can um amend back in the ridership piece, which would uh get us where we need to go.

I will also say very clearly and loudly, um, I am not thrilled with the way that this has been set up at the state.

I think it is incredibly unfair that Denver and to some extent Aurora, as the two, you know, sort of capital and attached city, um, two of the three largest cities in the state of Colorado, and the only two that are in the the two biggest that are in the RTD district, have been sort of set up um in opposition to the suburban cities.

I think that that's unfair.

I think that it is unrealistic, and I think that if we continue to behave that way as a state, we're never gonna get where we need to go because we all need to work together to get there.

Um so I find that piece of this really really frustrating.

That's why the ridership piece ended up coming out at the end of last week, and it is um it is not.

I think we can all agree that we want our the RTD board to change, um, but setting pitting us against each other isn't the way to do that.

And so I I'm personally very frustrated about that.

Thanks for letting me get on my soapbox.

Councilmember Flynn.

Oh, thank you.

Uh could one of you at least um Adam, David, uh talk a little bit higher level about how this fixes anything at RTD, just changing the bucks in the seats and reducing the number of seats.

How does it get people back on buses and back on the rail, which is the biggest problem they face?

I don't see how this addresses any of that.

It's just governance.

Yeah, and thank you.

And I want to go back to one thing real quick, just so the committee knows that the mayor's office is outlocked up with you on this.

So we're we're in amend if we need to go to a pose.

We're there, we understand and want to try to make this the best.

Yeah.

I I think you kind of answered your question with your question.

There are fundamental issues that are much larger than just representation.

It has to do with dollars and accessibility and frequency and these other things that really help to build the system back out.

I think where they're coming from is because it's grown so large, and the voices may have diminished a little bit as far as how many seats there are.

This shrinkage gives a better opportunity maybe for a smaller board that's more specialized due to the requirements based upon finance.

Right.

So I think that's where they were going with that.

Um David, I don't know if you want to kind of add to that.

How many chairs?

That's right.

Yeah, uh agree with that that maybe we gain a little bit of of uh professionalism by the appointees, but that's not guaranteed either.

Um at least be some vetting with with those with those folks.

Um it doesn't solve the fundamental budget issues that RTD is facing, and it doesn't solve the fundamental questions of getting people on the why are people trying to take in the bus.

Frequency routes, times of service.

I don't know.

Katie, do you have any no?

I would I would just echo exactly what um Adam and David said that I think you're correct that it's mostly a change in governance, but it doesn't um address those key issues that we've seen with RTD.

Okay, you know, just globally as a comment.

COVID, number one, and work from home has really altered uh how people get around, but more importantly, it's it's put them they found another way to get around, and frequently it's by their own vehicle or from staying at home.

And I don't know how you can solve that when folks just don't want to get on the bus because they're working from home now, or uh they don't feel safe, or it doesn't run when they get off work and they gotta find another way home.

Um then that was compounded by a lot of things that probably had to be done that uh CEO Deborah Johnson did, which is state of good repair, uh the downtown loop, the Southeast Corridor, and uh how long was the the slow travel time on the on the E and the H lines uh coming in.

And if I lived in Southeast Denver and relied on the light rail during that period, I would have found another way.

That's the problem.

The problem isn't the 15 elected versus the five and the nine and the four.

So good luck with that.

Just comment.

Councilwoman Gonzalez could us.

Thank you, madam chair, and I do want to thank you know the team and and all of the work that has been done and also the mayor's office for you know coordinating with us on all of this, and it's absolutely right.

You know, the the amount of investment that Denver makes um in the infrastructure, the amount of land that we contribute, um it is extremely concerning the representation conversation, but I think in addition to that to your point, Councilman Flynn, the fact that you know, going from 15 to 9, um it just broadens or it makes as like an at-large member, right?

I represent over 700,000 people, and you think about tailoring down the RTD districts to nine people, and how many people they are then tasked with representing.

There's a huge bet much bigger conversation around whether or not the governor should have any appointments at all, and that's something that I've I've brought up as a concern, and um I think there are other council members who feel similarly because one we know like that's giving one person way too much power.

Um, and then two, um, who are those folks then um who who are they to they do they report to, right?

Who are they accountable to?

And is it the people or is it the governor?

And that's really concerning, and we don't know what governor we might get into the point of the sunset, which I thought was a great idea, because we don't know what will happen in you know eight years um when there could be a new governor, or maybe before that.

We don't know.

And we don't know who they might want to appoint that may value transit or may not value transit.

And so I think all of those things are concerns that we've raised to um at least I have raised, I will say I'll make IP statements on that front um to some of our legislators, um, and and also to our committee as far as you know the concerns that would come from as as city council and in thinking about the professionalism piece of it.

We are all an elected body.

We don't have um requirements other than what is it age?

I know at the legislature it's age, and you have to live in your district or live, you know, in your jurisdiction for so much time in order to qualify to run for these seats.

Why in these elected roles are we saying, well, we need somebody who's an expert on on transit, an expert on this, an expert on that.

We don't have that on our body, we don't have those expectations.

Now we do have resident experts on things like land use and um employment law, and um, you know, being we all have our our different things that we bring to the table, but what we're here to do is to govern in our elected capacity, even our mayor, right?

Our mayor doesn't have um special requirements to be mayor of the city of Denver.

And so it's it's we're now saying, okay, now we're placing this expectation on our TD directors, as opposed to what their role is to govern and to represent the people that elected them.

And the expertise and those that have the expertise are then the staff, just like how our city operates.

We have all of our agencies and departments who have the expertise, and we we look to them to help us and in our governance.

And so that's just something that I I wanted to make sure is is heard as far as like there's I think a group of council members who maybe feel more strongly that this shouldn't the governance model shouldn't change at all.

And if we want to change it, then it should go back to the people for a vote, which is what um you know, I think has been stated by um council members, and and you know, we know that right now we want to make sure that Denver does have representation, despite all the things I just said, right?

Like those are our real things and real concerns.

Um, and I think you know why I think we're continuing to be in this amend position because we do want to make sure that Denver is well represented because of everything that we do currently and that we will continue to do.

So I appreciate everybody's everybody's work on this and know that like we're all committed to continue to push this forward.

All right.

Anything else on RTD because we still have the fun budget conversation coming.

Um before we move on, it's the next slide budget.

I think it is.

Yeah, so before we get there, could we just do um a quick legislative update?

Thank you, David, on what's going on on 1308 and 1114.

These are the two land use bills that are still open and outstanding.

We are in a pose on both.

Um, one is the lot splitting bill and one is the maximum uh lot size.

I think Kyle Dalton has been promoted and is online if we have any questions first from the CPD side.

Um, but just want to, because we're the land use commissioners for the city and county of Denver as as city council members, um, just want to give uh council a quick, you know, three sentences on what's going on with those.

I know we have some council members who were set to um testify Thursday.

It is our understanding that has been delayed now.

Um I guess there was an email that came from like the automatic system this morning, which is the only reason we we knew about it.

This is all happening real time, so you guys might not even know about it yet.

Um we are still planning for it to be up on Thursday.

Yeah, so we can have a conversation about that uh after this, but I would just like to give council members a quick update.

We remain in a pose.

Um but 1308 and 1114, I think are two land use bills that we still have a lot of concerns on.

And I will just say thank you to CPD.

CPD always tries to come up with amendments in order for us to go into at the very you know, at least amend and try and get us to a support position on all of these.

Um and CPD's recommendation was a pose on these two because there is just simply no way to fix them.

Um they are still trying.

So anyway, CPD is here if council members, if you have any questions about those two.

Um, our lobbyists are also you know, here if you have any questions about those two, but wanted to just kind of give you a quick one-second update on those before we move on from legislation.

Yeah, um, we are still seeing that they are up Thursday, but I I've got questions out to see if that is planning to change.

Um, we are working closely with CCI and CML on the committee vote count.

Um we think we'll get to a good place um that we want to be in, but um, there are a couple of committee members that are uh a little bit of uh wild card, so we're trying to shorten them up.

Awesome.

And I would I would just add, and I shared this with the chair this morning, you know, like the home, this is a little bit different.

We home was a little easier for us to work.

I think it was more a home rule.

This is really bad, 1308.

And so we do have a community planning development meeting with one of the sponsors this afternoon just to share potential amendments without the I sort of promised that we'd get to a support, but it's that bad for implementation that we're hoping we can get an audience that might help clean the bill up a little bit.

Because as it is right now, it's real then.

Yes.

Um, I did just get word that it does look like um 1308 the lot splitting was rescheduled to April 30th, um, but we're waiting on confirmation.

Okay, really appreciate that.

We'll see.

Like I said, this is all happening real time, like into our inboxes right now.

So no worries that you are not 100% on that right now because you're presenting to us on the long bill and the orbitals, which are also such a good time.

Yes, absolutely.

So um some updates on the budget.

So both the House and the Senate have debated and passed um HB 1410, which is the long bill, and the related orbital bills that support the long bill and are part of the budget package.

Um, eleven of those bills of the orbitals were amended in the Senate, requiring the House either to concur with those amendments or request a conference committee.

Um the JBC is the conference committee for these amendments, and they are planning to meet this afternoon once floor work is uh done to consider both House and Senate amendments and see how those bills should move forward.

Um there were a couple of orbital bills that we wanted to highlight specifically because of their impact on local governments.

Um the first one is House Bill 1360, the affordable housing financing fund.

Um if you remember in the governor's budget request, um he requested that 110 million be moved from uh Prop 123 in an effort to balance the budget.

Um the JBC did move forward with this request and added an additional 20 million so it totaled 130 million will be transferred from Prop 123 as a budget balancing um measure.

Um the next orbital we wanted to highlight highlight was House Bill 1399.

Uh, this would eliminate the general fund transfer to the multimodal transportation fund.

Um this bill um would uh cancel the transfer that occurs every July 1st um from the general fund to the multimodal transportation fund.

Um it cancels the one for July 1st, 2026, um, but the resumes the transfers beginning July 1st, 2027.

Um the bill also reduces the appropriation from the multimodal transportation fund by 10.5 million to reflect uh this change.

Um this this bill and um 13 oh sorry 1399 was um amended in the uh Senate and the House did not concur with those amendments, so it will be heard in that conference committee later today.

Um another one uh is House Bill 1405.

This is cash fund transfers to general funds.

Um this mandates transfers from approxim approximately 30 different cash funds to the general fund.

Um the largest single transfers include 27.3 million from the local government severance tax fund and 19.4 million from the same fund on a different date.

Um 15 million from both the small business recovery and resiliency fund and the infrastructure investment and jobs act cash fund.

Um this bill also the house considered Senate amendment um and they did not concur, so it will be heard in the conference committee this afternoon.

Um and then the last bill we wanted to highlight uh was House Bill 1409.

This is the marijuana tax cash fund distributions.

Um this bill removes the current 3.5% distribution of retail marijuana sales tax to local governments and redirects uh the revenue 73 uh percent to the marijuana tax cash fund, 11% to the state public school fund, and 1.5% to the marijuana cash fund, um, and 14% to the to the general fund.

So this change will decrease distribution to local governments by 6.1 million in fiscal year 26-27 and increase funding to the state, primarily the marijuana tax cash fund.

Um Senate amended this with a technical amendment that did not uh change the fiscal note.

The House did not concur, um, and they will discuss this in conference committee this afternoon.

So things are not comingly.

Amazing, amazing.

I also have Catalina here from the Department of Finance to talk about um just give us sort of a brief overview of the impacts of the general fund, and then Adam, I don't know if you have any questions.

I was just gonna say, and and also we'll make sure when this passes, we'll have a whole financial piece for council when we have a chance to really sit down and go through everything that'll be much more comprehensive as to the impacts to the city.

Right now it's real high level, so things may change.

Yes, and so to add to that for the marijuana sales tax bill, that's about 3.5% that goes to local governments, as Katie said.

And that would be an impact of 1.3 approximately 1.3 million uh for the 2026 budget, and then in perpetuity, if it passes, we would be missing about 1.3 million.

Um for the multimodal bill.

Um those funds usually go to Dr.

Cog, and so we'd have to work with um Dottie and to see what the impacts of what capital projects that could impact.

All right.

Um there was one other bill uh that I want to just run across briefly for you all, and it is the um, hold on, I want to look up the number and um it is traffic safety near schools.

This is House Bill 1318.

Um I just wanted to flag that win back up for you because as we know this is a really important um uh priority for us.

So I'm wondering if Dottie could just talk through.

We are in amend on 1318.

Um it was really, really we're in support on 1318, but it was a really, really close voort vote between um uh uh amend and support.

And so um I want to just ask Dottie to come up and just can you talk through where you guys are um on 1318 and what that looks like because it is something who feels really strongly about supporting.

Um, but there are it it's the fiscal note is zero.

Oh, yeah.

We know what that means.

I think we know what that means.

Uh Nick Williams Dottie on this.

Yeah, this is one we've had a number of discussions with.

Um, you know, it does put some additional uh administrative burdens that will then of course translate to either additional time or additional cost into how we both establish, but I think probably more importantly, how we adjust our school zones on this.

Um of the changes made, I think make it less onerous uh uh on there.

Um I think recognizing kind of the importance of this topic and understanding council and the mayor's office desire to support this.

We're comfortable with this.

This is not going to bring the house down for it.

But but yeah, certainly recognizing, as you said, as that fiscal note comes down, down, down.

We know where that goes.

That will go to us um on there.

And and yeah, just some, I think uh a little bit more process, a little bit more administration around uh school zones and those establishments.

Awesome, thank you.

Questions?

There's a lot going on.

Can you guys tell?

Oh, yeah.

Almost done.

We're almost done.

We're so close.

Um, so you guys will so session closes in 33 days?

22.

22.

Oh, yeah.

Let's not make it any longer than it has to be.

Um, okay.

So um in May, just so council members are aware, we um are not gonna have our lobbyists come because that is gonna be sort of the period of time when our when the governor's gonna be signing bills and things are gonna, there's just like a kind of a weird lag time there.

So they will be back in June to do kind of a full um legislative wrap-up wrap-up for us then, but we won't see them in May.

Um, if you have any questions or you would like to speak, we would love for council members to um sign up to speak at the state house.

I think it's really impactful and meaningful.

Um, but also our calendars are a hot mess.

So uh, you know, understanding the challenges of what it looks like to speak uh at the state is is tough.

But our lobbyists can help us with that.

So if you're interested, please let us know or let our lobbyists know because it um it's really uh a great opportunity for us to have our voice heard.

Yeah, go ahead.

I do just want to um clarify what I said earlier.

Uh 1308, the lot splitting bill is supposedly rescheduled, but 1114, the minimum lot sizes is still scheduled for this Thursday.

So if you would like to provide testimony on that bill, please let us know, and we're happy to help support you in that.

Okay, I'll upload an email to you guys.

Sounds great.

Uh great.

With that, we have one item, a couple of items on consent, um, and we are adjourned.

Thanks for joining us.