Welcome back to this week.

Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Health and Safety Committee with Denver City Council.

Coverage of the Health and Safety Committee starts now.

Good morning and welcome to the Health and Safety Committee meeting for May 13th.

My name is Daryl Watson.

I'm honored to serve as the chair of this committee as well as the city council member representing all of the fine district nine.

We have one action item today, and uh let me see two items on consent.

Uh, before we jump into our action item, why don't we go around a room for introductions and I'll start first on my right.

Uh thank you.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Members District 2.

So you're district five.

Sorry, parody.

One of your council members at large.

Sedana Gonzalez Cookedis, your other council member at large.

Uh Jamie Torres, West Denver District 3.

This side of the table.

Holding it down.

Holding it down.

All I hear lonesome.

Absolutely necessary.

It's absolutely necessary.

And I believe we have online, Council President Pro Tem.

Hi.

Good morning.

Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Thank you all for attending.

Um I wanted to say up front, we there will be a siren alarm at 11.

Please don't run out of your room.

Um, it is just a test.

Um we don't believe you'll hear it in the room, but for those who are watching, you will hear it in your communities.

It is a test.

The notifications have gone out to everyone, but we just want to make sure folks are not concerned.

It's a good thing for emergency management.

Um, with that, I'll turn it over to the sponsors for the municipal sentencing ordinance for their review of that ordinance.

Just waiting for our slides.

So thank you all.

We are here to um give an update on changes from last time we came through committee.

This is our sixth time in committee on this bill.

Um, the last time was in April, uh, and we we particularly want to focus today on the feedback about the um huge number of sort of agency violations that exist throughout our code.

Um we have come up with a new way of handling those that um we are hopeful will resolve those concerns.

Um, there have been a few other changes, and we're gonna focus today on changes, not so much on the bill itself because we all heard about it many times.

And Councilmember Lewis is sick today, just so you all know.

I apologize.

I Councilmember Lewis, our third co-sponsor is really sick, yeah.

You ready?

Yeah, sorry.

Um we re-revised our we redivided our slides um right before committee since she is homesick.

So this is just the recap of um what we've done already.

I know you're all familiar with this, but we are um revising the DRMC so that we are matching all of our municipal sentences post-the-camp decision to the maximum possible sentences for comparable state offenses to preserve maximum sentencing authority post-camp.

We are revising the language of some offenses so that the actual elements can align the conduct that they prohibit with a more stringent state law, and then allow us to um access that higher sentencing level after camp, which without the revisions will not be possible.

Um, also rewriting offense descriptions to more clearly align with state law, where um maybe it's not changing the punishment available, but it's just uh making it more clear what state law it aligns with, and then eliminating mandatory fines on prostitution, um, and setting uh oops, my bad.

I should not be driving.

I keep doing this.

All right.

Um so here the next slide uh depicts the major changes that the bill has had since the last committee that we wanted to give a quick overview on before digging into the details in the next few slides.

So, first, we made a major change to the class four offenses in the bill that reflect a key compromise with pace and the mayor's office and agencies.

In the in committee and in our stakeholder conversations, we heard agencies concerned about the bill provision to categorize municipal only offenses as class four.

The mayor's office and pace had similar concerns about this quote unquote catch-all provision in the previous bill drafts because it made municipal only offenses class four, meaning 10 days maximum jail time and a $300 fine.

Recognizing that the regulatory functions of our city government are unique and deserve a close review.

We made a major change to the bill to leave the vast majority of the Denver Revised Municipal Code at the status quo general penalty, 300 days, $999 fine, and instead to create a commission that will go into more detail in a little bit here that will study the offense these offenses and propose appropriate penalties.

We'll get more details in the following slides.

Let me stay there for a minute because I want to continue.

Second, we heard a concern from PACE about threats to pets in a domestic violence context, for which there is no state crime.

Threats to pets fall under threats to property in both state and municipal code.

We proactively added a municipal-only offense to that section to encompass situations where someone makes a threat to a pet.

This topic may warrant future consideration, specifically if Denver wants to think differently about threats to pets.

Given the emotional value of our pets that our pets hold is different than property value.

But the latest draft includes the provision in order to maintain PACE's prosecutorial authority on an important issue.

While keeping with the narrow focus of the bill on sentencing.

So we got a document, or actually the sponsors didn't, some colleagues got a document last night that had a list of um outstanding concerns coming from the city prosecutors, many of which, in all of our dozen meetings with them, we have never heard.

So I'm going to try to respond to those on the fly as quickly as I can.

But I just want you all to understand that this is, I've been doing this this morning, since some colleagues actually afforded me those concerns, which I really appreciate it.

With regard to threats to pets, just to set the context for this, the only reason we didn't have a separate form of property crime that was lower level than what state law covers originally is because we really felt and I continue to feel that other city ordinances such as harassment cover that conduct.

But understanding that this was such a sticking point for the city prosecutors, we did go ahead and put it in in advance of today.

So this is now again a separate level municipal crime threats to property where the property actually doesn't get damaged.

The new ask that we're seeing last night is to now increase the penalty beyond that of all of our other municipal-only crimes.

And my concern about that upon very quick review is that first of all, we've we've only heard of a we had examples of two cases in a in almost a seven-year period where Pace had examples from their caseload of a pet being threatened but not actually hurt, and that coming up in the facts of DV.

I know that it could come up, and I know that there may be more, but that's what we were able to elicit from them.

However, when property is actually damaged, so if if a pet actually gets harmed, that is governed by camp.

And camp lays out for damage for property that's worse, and I think with a pet, this could probably go either way.

For property that's worth less than $300 under because of camp and state law, the penalty if that property is actually damaged, and again, we treat pets as property in our code, it's not my language, is only 10 days in jail.

Um if property is worth more than $300, then it's $120 days in jail.

But the problem is if we make a threat that doesn't lead to any actual damage, a higher sentence, then it's gonna be higher when there is actual harm.

And that does not make sense.

We are trying to create a rational sentencing code and work from what aligns with state law, and keep in mind that when state law set these sentences, including for property damage of $300 and under, they did that after a massive amount of process, and they did that for good reasons.

Um I also have to say something here in the meeting that we were finally able to get with PACE last Monday when we discussed this concern.

Marley, I'm gonna say something to you.

Um, I you felt that I was minimizing harm to pets, and I had to go off camera.

The reason that I had to go off camera, and I don't really appreciate feeling like I need to say this today, is because I had a memory of my dad who I adored, who died last year and was a public figure, beating our dog with a belt in the backyard because he was upset with my mother.

So I'm not minimizing this.

I understand the seriousness.

And I think that's part of the problem with what brings us here today is that there's a whole lot of people trying to speak up for victims.

Um we have heard loud and clear for many years from the victim rights community from survivors, including from many that I have represented through the hardest times of their lives, and I have did that for years.

Dozens and dozens of clients, mostly women, sometimes men, sometimes children, that they do not want people coming in here and using their stories and weaponizing them.

So I'm not trying to speak for all victims, but what I am telling you is that that kind of emotionally freighted response is not how we should be making policy.

Threats to pets, in my view, if we only have a 10-day jail sentence pursuant to camp and state law when property is actually damaged, including if a pet is hurt, it does not make sense to add greater than 10 days if the pet is merely threatened and not actually hurt, even though I understand the import of that.

Ten days in jail is a long time.

In a situation where a pet has been threatened, it's very likely that there's been other DV misconduct and charges can be stacked.

So I am not thrilled about the idea of making this some kind of exception and increasing this, but this is the level of detail that we're now getting into with this bill.

And every time we think we've come back with a compromise that handles all the concerns we've heard, we get a new list of concerns.

It is our sixth time in committee.

The other um, there are a couple of other concerns from the letter that fall under domestic violence concerns that I want to address.

Um, we have heard that.

If I'm just quoting from this document that went around, um that there's a concern about protection orders and stalking related conduct.

Every violation of a protection order in a domestic violence case that where there's an intimate relationship, or a person being protected, that's the basis of the protective order, can already get 300 days in jail.

We don't need additional evidence of stalking to get up to that kind of sentence.

Um the potential punishment for the first violation of a PO in a domestic violence case is the maximum for a class two offense of 300 days in jail.

So I understand that we don't have that separately for violation of all protective orders, but if it's a DV protective order, it has a 300-day penalty.

That is almost a year in jail.

Um finally, we've heard a lot of discussion about flourishing weapons.

And what you all need to understand is that again, camp and state law dictate the sentences for flourishing of weapons whenever a person is put in fear.

So again, in a domestic violence situation, if someone is made afraid, those have state law parallels, and camp dictates the sentences, and our bill reflects that.

The only remaining municipal-only flourishing offense is where someone is carrying any object that could be a weapon.

It's not limited to guns, it has been charged in cases involving all kinds of other an object that a person might be holding.

They're holding it, it's visible, they get arrested, but there's no witness who says they were scared.

That is limited to 10 days in jail under our bill.

In a domestic violence scenario, by definition, you have someone that was scared by the weapon, and it's a higher sentence and it's governed by camp.

Um the first portion here, our compromise on how to handle municipal only crimes.

What we've done is we have now said that the 10-day sentence for municipal only crimes is only for the things in the municipal criminal code, which we've discussed exhaustively, we've shown you all that.

There is also a huge list, as you all know, of crimes that are essentially never charged, like the horse tromping in the garden and that kind of thing.

We've looked at that list.

Um, there's nothing that needs to be treated with more than 10 days that anyone has pulled out for us from that portion of the code, and I believe that's still true, even with the communications we've gotten last night.

We also um you're skipping ahead a little bit, because we still have to get through the other stuff, but go ahead.

Sorry, I just want to say this.

Um, we also pulled out a list of class four offenses that Councilmember Gonzalezalsku chairs is going to go over that are in the rest of the code, not the criminal code.

Other than the ones we are listing, we are kicking everything else in all the rest of the code over to a commission.

So no default 10 days, no default 120 days.

Um we are leaving all of those things just like they are, except for a list that we pulled out.

Um and the communications that we got last night also contain some significant misunderstandings about the impact of that change, which I will get to in when we get to that slide.

Yeah, no, and if you want to chime in, that's fine.

Um, so uh in this uh for in kind of building off of what councilman parody was speaking to, and also I'm very sorry to hear about that.

That's the first time I've heard about that.

Um I'm sorry, um, so this slide is meant to explain the class four changes in a bit more detail.

So as we were just saying, we heard that the agencies, and we also heard all of you as our colleagues loud and clear, um, the concerns brought up on this issue.

Council members um Sawyer, Torres, Romero Campbell, and Council President Sandoval, I believe you all flagged this um specific piece as something you wanted us to follow up on, so we did.

Uh, in the latest bill draft, we removed the catch-all provision so that the vast majority of municipal only offenses now remain at the status quo of 300 days and 999 fine to allow for a new commission to have the time to make recommendations for appropriate penalties.

We'll share more.

Um, like I said, on the commission in a few more slides later.

Agencies shared in our briefings that even the existing sentencing scheme does not give them necessarily the tools for deterrence for mainly regulatory issues that they want, right?

So even threatening with jail time is very difficult, and even if it has been threatened, it's never actually nobody's ever served time, even the most egregious corporate entities, landlords, have actually never served time.

Now, does the threat actually do anything?

That's the question, and that's why we are tabling that for that discussion to be able to talk about what are the actual penalties that will be able to help bring people into compliance.

Um the $999 maximum fine that the general penalty allows for most offenses, is sometimes not enough to move larger corporate actors into compliance.

So having a dedicated commission to look at appropriate penalties in detail will allow us to be very intentional with the regulatory code, specifically talking about the Class 4 offenses.

Some offenses were added for consistency in our code.

We'll go through these in the next slides.

Um, class four now includes offenses comparable to state petty offenses as the Supreme Court ruling requires.

Municipal only offenses from chapter 38 of the criminal code and a narrow set of commonly charged low-level regulatory offenses.

We've met with pace and the mayor's office on both May 4th and May 7th to discuss these changes to class four, among other things.

At the time, you know, we were able to discuss some of the concerns, but not in great detail about the list of class four offenses, but they did want to follow up with agencies.

We sent the proposal of the class four offenses that you now see in the bill on April 29th, two weeks ago.

I also um want to give a huge thank you to our coalition for their support in reviewing chapter 38.

And on this point, I will just say, and I know councilwoman parody mentioned this earlier, but I want to put a finer point on this.

There are some council members, and I don't know who all received it, received a document last night from Pace, detailing outlining their concerns.

This is something that we have been asking for since we sent them our proposal, and since we met with them, we've asked for uh the feedback in writing so that we can look at how it can be incorporated in the language.

We did not receive that until this morning.

So we received it as the sponsors after our colleagues did.

And so I want to just put a finer point on that.

So if the question comes up of why aren't these things being considered, it's because we haven't had the opportunity to do so.

All right, um, so this is from the previous draft.

Um, as we've indicated, these like purple stars indicate those that fall under the Supreme Court ruling.

What is uh we are constitutionally obligated to abide by uh the um so this is how it looks when we before we changed the catch-all piece.

Uh the the list included state petty offenses comparables uh which are being changed again to align with camp, some municipal only offenses, which means they have no comparable at the state marked with a green asterisk.

So those are municipal only.

The next slide depicts what um is happening now.

So what we did was we took an even finer tooth comb and said, okay, if we're not able to do a quote unquote catch-all, what we will do is look at what other offenses fall under the same kind of lines as uh falling under uh state petty type offenses, right?

That would be considered petty offenses, um, crimes of poverty, those kinds of issues, and things that nobody is getting sentenced, um, you know, the 10 days, right?

So that's where we took the finer tooth comb, and that's what we presented to the mayor's office and to pace, and that's where we're in discussions right now.

And when we say discussions, we circulated this list immediately after committee, and we haven't gotten any kind of response until the document last night, which includes a bunch of misunderstandings.

Um, so if I can address that, again, I don't know who got this document, um, but it has a list of um supposed offenses in the rest of the municipal code that um cases stating will go down to a 10-day sentence under our bill.

And just we didn't in the in like the half hour that we have before committee, a whole bunch of these have state analogs.

So they're not going to 10 days.

These are not on this list because we didn't have them before our slide deck and they're not impacted by our bill.

They are um things that are being raised for your consideration that are not actually at issue.

So if you've seen a document that says that killing police animals, escaping from jail, price switching, wage theft are all going down to 10 days, they are not.

They all have state law equivalents that and they are all governed under camp.

So the lack of communication with the bill sponsors is leading to a whole lot of unnecessary confusion.

Um, and I actually am pretty shocked that we're at this point in the bill and still having this level of understanding of misunderstanding, rather, which we could have resolved first.

So if you're concerned that we're gonna be um, you know, sending people to jail for only 10 days for killing a police animal.

No, that is a class one misdemeanor with 300 days equivalent to a state law.

Committee chair.

If I can just interject real quickly, uh I was one who uh at the last time this came before committee requested uh just just to make this discussion easier to get to a resolution.

A list of everything uh the the city attorney's office was concerned about, and um uh I received that uh about nine o'clock last night.

Council member, we've also been asking for that.

No, no, I'm just gonna be.

I know I'm just explaining how this letter that's been mentioned.

And so we talked about it a little bit.

We have been requesting that list for months.

We've had multiple meetings.

May I interject?

I I hear that and I appreciate Council Member Cashman in the last committee meeting, you bring that forward.

I appreciate the statements from the sponsors that they've been asking for this.

The opportunity within this committee would be after the presentation for pace to respond to the statements that are being made.

And so someone around this table will ask for them to respond from their perspective, and I look forward to that.

So, taken, understood.

Um, I encourage you, please let's continue the presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And before be as we wrap up, I would actually ask the mayor's office to come up first because they do have a statement before we proceed to those questions as part of the presentation.

You're next.

Yep.

So this is more on the um commission that we want to handle uh regulatory code violations.

So everything that's not in the actual criminal code and that isn't on that last slide.

And the last slide again was arrived at because we just wanted to make sure that some of these really low-level things that happen to be outside the criminal code and never get long jail sentences, don't stay at 300 days while we wait for a commission process.

So the proposed commission is to make recommendations for two things.

Number one, for everything else in, you know, the other uh 40 or however many chapters of our code, um, what the appropriate penalties should be, including fines and jail time.

We won't be touching those other than the ones on that past slide, um, until this commission does its work.

Um, and this is because I think the way that we handle regulatory crimes that we've had so many bills about this and so much good work done on this, things like the rental registry, things like public health violations, um, that we've really come to understand from our agency partners that our existing fine and jail structures are really not that well tailored to what they do, and so they just need to be revisited in a more nuanced way rather than put into one of these um categories in this bill, which are really designed more for um what you would think of as you know, classic individual crimes.

Um so we are excited about this commission.

We think it's a really good approach.

Um no formal positions from the mayor's office, but we have heard indications that this works for them.

I don't know if that's true or not.

Um we would try to keep it fairly quick with a report within six months of bill passage, and we've been talking about the actual membership of that back and forth with the mayor's office to create a very balanced commission.

Um and then the second thing it would look at is um going into chapter 38, the criminal code for um a bunch of these weirdly antiquated offenses that we've now realized are in there.

Again, my favorite example is letting your horse walk in someone's garden, but there's a bunch of those.

So things that should actually just be repealed and should no longer be criminalized.

Um so that work we would we would um it's things that we've identified throughout the passage of this bill that we don't want to rush and that we think are worth um separate attention.

And just um in addition, like the the committee structure, all of the the details, we are um we want this to live in the bill so that we are putting guardrails around what is expected of this commission, who it who what entities uh will be participating in this, uh, and then some guardrails around expectations when a report is is um provided as well as policy needing to with follow-up policy ordinance change things like that that will need to then occur as well in response to the report.

And I just want to emphasize that that was the last time we were in committee, the letter from the DA, the um statements at that time from the administration side were primarily about the idea that there were all of these potentially serious offenses lurking in the regulatory code, and that we couldn't risk um kicking all of those down to 10-day jail sentences, even if they were stackable.

So we made this is a huge change to the approach, and the benefit of it is that it will allow a commission to also look at you know making the fines much higher, making the make it easier to stack fines day by day.

Like it sort of creates a lot more opportunity to um to do things quite differently for those kinds of offenses to consider corporate actors different than non-corporate actors, all that kind of thing.

Um so I'm a big fan of this solution.

Um, and this was what came out of the last committee.

That was the primary um thought thing that we took to be our task.

So we handled it.

Our next time.

Um, this is again going over our stakeholding and not to the locals.

Um, if you go to the next slide, because this is now your to see in 2026 that we're um continuing to have these meetings.

We've met with um Pace in the Mayor's Office since last committee and also with the district attorney's office since last committee.

Um, and then also we had these community list listening sessions with 70 or more people that were immediately after last committee, they had been scheduled then.

Um but we had those and we and we put those out to all bids, JIDs, um, yeah, RNOs, and everyone that we knew was interested in the topic, and they had very good turnout.

And lastly, um, while you know the three of us, myself, Councilwoman Parity and Councilwoman Lewis are running the bill, uh, there is a broader coalition that we've talked about that stands in support of this bill, which you can see here, which includes organizations such as the coalition for the homeless, the Colorado Freedom Fund Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, uh, Colorado, and disability law Colorado among many others.

Next steps, uh, we so our goal is to continue moving forward, move out of committee today, with mayor council on May 19th, and you see there's an extra week in there, and that's because of the holiday.

So, because of the holiday, it adds an extra week in it continuing to move in the process, and so that would give us some time to um continue to, you know, make sure that we uh put a you know wrap everything up and and get those details hammered out.

And we're on to questions.

Uh, oh, and actually before that, I was going to ask if um uh Tim Hoffman could come up and provide information from the mayor's office.

Uh good morning, Tim Hoffman with the mayor's office.

Uh I have spoken uh with the council sponsors, council members parody, Gonzalez Gutierrez and Lewis this morning.

Um I want to address the uh concern that Councilman Cashman raised about the email that was sent on behalf of the um administration last night with a list of some of the concerns.

The process that we have been working through with the council sponsors, and as they um alluded to, we have been meeting numerous times.

Um we've had productive conversations.

There are still concerns that the administration has, um, but those discussions are ongoing and have been um there have been um some pretty big movements and changes uh that made us uh certainly more comfortable with this version of the bill, removing that large catch-all.

Um so I want to first acknowledge that and then also acknowledge that um the process that we were um that we had spoken with the council sponsors about um that we intended to follow uh was to have not only the city jurors' office but all of the regulatory agencies um pull together all of the remaining and outstanding concerns with the latest version of the bill, so that there was kind of one master document um of all of the outstanding concerns and considerations that the administration as a body had um that would have then been uh the the plan was to relay that to the council sponsors to continue those um discussions to see what um could be or could not be agreed to within those, and then to councilman Cashman's point um that it was also a specific request to make sure that those were also really um at uh at a later time uh to the rest of council for them to review any outstanding issue the administration had um to the extent that didn't happen last night, which it didn't um uh we own that, and I apologize for the um kind of confusion that that led to, but it is a process that um uh we are committed to moving forward.

So just wanted to uh make that statement.

Thank you.

Tim, is this document from last night?

So you and I talked on the phone last night around 8 p.m.

You told me it wasn't gonna be possible to get us back our specific answers before committee.

Um, and then something went out, not to us that had a bunch of specific concerns, some of which we have not heard.

The criminal code is not that long, like these provisions that we've been talking about, we've been talking about for months.

So I don't know how we're still finding new concerns, but putting that aside, you told me it wouldn't be possible to get out last night, it then went out last night.

Is it an official administrative administration position?

Have you reviewed it?

Do you know what's in it?

I just don't understand how we should be viewing this document.

So the goal is to have the comprehensive document that isn't just from the city attorney's office, but also encompasses encompasses the remaining concerns of any other regulatory agency.

Um, so to the extent that that document represents all of our concerns, no, it does not.

But have you read it?

I've not gotten a chance to look through the full document.

Okay.

Um do you does the mayor's office agree with everything in it?

So, uh, we want that's the alarm announcement.

So phones won't be going on.

So let's take a few minutes right.

All of our phones work, it all works.

Yay.

Um we're we're back.

Um, council member parody, do you mind restating your question and Mustafa?

And I'll have a question for you as well.

Yeah, I just I'm the reason I'm concerned, Tim, is we got an email from you I think two committees ago that listed at the at that time the mayor's office outstanding concerns with the bill, and we care about the mayor's position on the bill.

We've been seeking his position on the bill, um, or the position of his office or the administration as a whole.

Um, and that list could include four things, every single one of which we've now addressed, um, and and done and fixed essentially from your point of view.

Um, all four of those things that included the 10-day catch-all not applying to the administrative code, which is the latest change, and then three other things that were resolved earlier.

So I just want to know if this document from pace, I understand you haven't reviewed it, but is it essentially going to be um just have the the mayor's office imprimant or put on it once you do review it, or are you at all going to I don't know what I'm asking?

I want to know if we should take that as the mayor's position.

Yeah.

So when we have the administration's position that will be made clear to you all via the mayor's office, and that will come from okay so we're not there yet.

This thing that went around last night is not the mayor's position.

That's all I want to know.

So I I think that some of the concerns that are likely raised in that document are like the ongoing ongoing discussions that we've been having so I think to the extent that those things remain concerns that we as the administration have yes absolutely I think I just can't definitely comprehensively.

Thank you that answers my question I appreciate that.

And Mr.

Hoffman while you're standing there and I appreciate the sponsors bringing this forward I think it's important um for at least for me to ask this one question I'll get in the back of the queue which is the no for Hudson's for the committee chair.

However would you standing there you and I had a meeting with pace uh yesterday as well um we've walked through those the details of pace's concerns are there concerns from that dialogue that we had that you have about I just want to make sure because that list provided was the was the communication um that pace provided has been providing to my office as I've been meeting with pace as well.

So without having looked at the full document I I can't all I can tell you is that when it will come from the mayor's office the comprehensive list of all of the administration's concerns.

Perfect thank you Mr.

Hoffman what why don't we go to the queue and then we can um walk through um questions from members of on the queue council member Flynn followed by council member cashman then council president sandoval thank you excuse me thank you mr chair um you're probably really gonna hate this but the reason you've been in committee six times is that the bill goes ex way far beyond what we're required to do by the camp decision and takes in the whole criminal code and in the DRNC.

And so it's been a process of trying to understand the breadth of it and the impact of it and the possible unintended consequences and I think that's and and because most of the drafting over the time you were working on it for two years I think three almost three you've been working with the public defender and not closely enough with pace can't take that please so I think that explains why we've been back six times because we just had more and more questions.

I just you're making representations about work that I've done please just I am not ready to vote this out of committee not for this reason not for the reasons of you know I don't agree with the breadth of it but with this addition of the commission which is new today to me and uh there's no definition in the draft it's still to be determined and that's the very definition of not ready for the floor for me so if the commission weren't in there I would vote it to the floor right now.

So that's that's my only observation it's there's no the the reference to the makeup of the commission is the the uh crime control um prevention and control commission which has 33 members uh and this one that you're proposing has 20 and but there I don't see how it's going to be formed if it's going to take a look at the regulatory part of the code the crime prevention and control commission is entirely devoted to the criminal code so what experts are we going to get on board to review the regulatory code they're just not it's it to me it's not in the bill yet so I can't vote it out of committee.

I would be curious to know from the administration from Tim um if you are in a place of comfort with the list that we've exchanged or not and if you're not you're not but we're just trying to get to agreement with the administration not at all.

I don't care if the mayor's comfortable with it that's that's where we're how we're trying to formulate the the I'm hoping that the proposition there's office and the bill sponsors and the proponent coalition are all comfortable that that will help council members also be comfortable.

I understand the reason and I would be very comfortable with it if I had who appoints the members.

Okay.

From where do we draw the members, et cetera.

But right now it's parentheses basically to be determined.

I'm very comparable.

I support I would support a commission, but I need to see what it is.

Did you want to respond to it?

Um yeah, I just I understand that your perception is that we've collaborated with OMPD and not with PACE, and I'm telling you that my first email about this bill to the city attorney's office and the mayor's office was in October of 2023.

I mean, I have been seeking that collaboration.

I don't think it was a topic of interest to them until the camp decision came out, and there was nothing I could do about that.

And since Camp, we have had a dozen meetings.

I believe that we have met more frequently with Pace in the Mayor's Office than with OMPD.

We've had written exchanges with OMPD asking for their understanding of certain sections of this, but I just don't think that that's a fair characterization.

So I just I just have to say that.

So I'm speaking.

I'm speaking from the outside, so that's how it plays with me with and the input that I've had.

And I know that you did reach out, but I know you collaborated very closely with the public defender uh to a much greater extent.

Can I just add to and I do understand that the bill is that the bill started as an effort to reduce municipal sensing in general, not related to camp, because camp came later.

No, but it was too it was to align with state law.

So it was the same concept.

Yes.

Thank you.

I'll just um just to respond to that point around who we were working with.

Um, I think there was attempts to to work more closely.

I will say that as part of this process, it has been getting folks to the table has been very difficult from the beginning in trying to engage in this conversation.

And it has taken a lot, and I can probably look at the people in the room who have worked to manage all the scheduling.

I can look to you know the mayor's office and try to get you know get everybody on board to meet.

But I will say at the beginning, it was like holding teeth to like sit down and and have the meeting and talk about this.

And I know you're looking at it from the outside, but as somebody who's actually been in the meetings and been doing the work, that's what has occurred.

So I want to tell you that, and we can show you all the email exchanges that we've had if you'd like.

If you need to see that evidence, happy to show that to you.

And all of that could be true, but we still end up with a process where we come back six times.

It is true, Kevin.

I'm sorry, Councilman Flynn.

I don't disagree.

I don't disagree at all.

I grant you everything you just said, but that's the reason for coming back six times is that this body then has to claw back and review and consider the consequences when I go back to my voters and say I voted for this, and I didn't realize that this was going to happen because of it.

This is not a vote for this is not a kill committee, right?

We know that.

So it's you're not voting for it right now.

Sorry, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Sorry.

I completely completely understand that.

Thanks.

That's all.

And I'll say this is a very emotional um discussion, and I thank Councilmember for the opportunity for questions and answers.

Councilmember Cashman and Council President Senoval and then Council Member Sawyer.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I would um respectfully disagree with my colleague, Councilman Flynn.

Um, as far as my experience and in my workings with the administration on other issues, is there's a lack of true partnership.

Partnership is talked about, but it's shortcut.

Um, I asked for for the response from Pace at the last committee meeting, and to get that letter at nine o'clock last night is beyond unacceptable.

Um, uh, you know, I'll leave it at that.

I'll leave it at that.

But I think that from talking to this bill's sponsors, I'm fully confident at their level of commitment to partnership and the outreach they've done to the administration.

I feel the shortfall has been on the other side.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Cashman, Council President Senoval, Sawyer, and then Torres.

Thank you.

Um just want to say thank you for the work.

That's what happened, and thank you both for being committed to seeing this out.

I know how challenging it can be.

Um, it's not easy, especially when people have a lot of passion around this.

So I just want to say thank you.

So, um, I did have questions around the create the creation of the commission.

So I would love to see information on that.

I'd love to see how it's appointed.

Like, does it go through like um like I haven't been here for I've been here for a while and I've never I can't remember how we get someone on the crime prevention and control commission.

Does it go through our commission committee, like the one that we have a different proposal for this?

Okay.

So I can speak to that.

What we've talked about, and again, I'm we hoped to have this finalized, but we haven't gotten a response.

But what we've talked about is at a fairly high level of detail, and it is a list of 20 specific um basically positions.

So it's you know, someone from DPDs, someone from courts, someone or someone from specifically the um victim advocates within the courts, um, someone from the public defenders, someone from uh pace, someone from FIRE, someone from, you know, we have a whole list, someone from victim rights organization.

Um, and the idea is that we would just in the ordinance just define who those were.

And so if we say a representative DPD, DPD gets decide who they send.

So the ordinance would just lay that out because this is very short term, and we don't want to hold it up with an appointment process and having bills have to go through council.

And so our feeling was I didn't mean that appointment process.

I didn't get it finished.

I meant the one the no problem.

I meant the appointment process that we have where we have councilwoman Sawyer, council member Alpedres, and council member um what they're mayoral appointees.

They don't are they?

So they don't go to the appointed by the mayor.

Okay, so this would all be appointed by the mayor.

It would be I I think the structure that we have in mind is that the ordinance would set out uh basically all of these organizations that get to choose their designation.

So it's not it's not really a normal because it's not a commission that's gonna stand for a long time, it's very short term.

Um, and so the ordinance would say, you know, that these 10 entities can send who they want to send, and then they would just choose, and and there wouldn't need to be an appointment process to avoid that delay.

Okay, and then how did you get to the council would take action on in response to the working group?

How'd you get come up with January 15, 2027?

I can talk a little bit about that.

So um that was so what we were what we're looking at the timeline.

If this were to pass in June, then we want to give enough time for um members to be placed on this commission.

Um and so we want to get and we so we would have like a date certain, similar to what we did council president in the school city coordinating committee, where we said you must convene by this date, and that would be the plan.

So you must convene by this date.

You have this amount of time, four months amount of time to deliberate and um have you know dig in deep to all of these ideas and concepts, and then you have 60 days to come up with a report and report back, um, and in that time also working on the drafting of um legislation to be proposed in in a code change.

And so we are trying to put dates because we've seen um and from our own experience with whether it's working groups or task forces, is that if you don't have the guardrails and don't have some guidelines, they just kind of waffle out there and go on forever and ever with not a clear expectation and outcome and um deliverable.

And so we wanted to spell out those deliverables, and so you know we're amenable to to those dates.

Um we were just trying to like put something in, um, and so we're we are still waiting for feedback from um folks that we've been partnering with, um, all the stakeholders on those uh that timeline would be amenable.

And we'd love to hear from you all too on that.

And I can read the exact list that we've had in communication, but it's not final because we haven't heard back, and I sent this on the 7th, so almost a week ago.

Um it would be mayor's office, um, pace a representative of bids, jids, um, a victim rights organization, DPD, DFD, licensed licensure, or their city attorney, DDPAG, or their city attorney Denver Sheriff's Department, because they oversee the jail, which is really what these censuses are about.

Three city council members, those might have to be selected by you, Council President.

So we need to figure that out.

Um the municipal public defender, someone from that office, um, a forensic peer from the courts, um, a someone from an outside nonprofit in criminal justice reform, um, someone from an anti-poverty organization, someone from an immigrant rights organization, someone from the um statewide association of criminal defense attorneys, and someone who's like an academic.

So those are like the roles that we have in mind.

Okay, so and it's true, we don't have we don't have the appointment details completely worked out, but I just don't think that that's the kind of thing the mechanics of if people agree that those roles are acceptable, the mechanics of getting those people into the chairs to me can happen before the floor.

It's the roles that are important.

And we just every time we come back to committee, we get new and different concerns, and it is.

No, I know, but I can understand the delicate balance of having to do all of this, and I'll just say that I know that I think all of us in the city are really short staffed, and that the layoffs of 800 people and more have just really gutted a system that was intended to serve us, and we're doing a lot with a little, and so I'll just say that.

I think I've been going to public comment, I've been going to my registered neighborhood meeting.

We're all getting paid the same exact amount of money, and yet we lost money last year.

Every single one of us, everyone got furloughed last year, and no one got a merit increase, and I'll just say on public record, I've been at the city for 14 years, and my sister was here when they were doing furloughs.

I've never had such low morale in the city.

I've never had such bickering, I've never had, I've like literally I go home at night and I tell my husband, I've never worked around a group of people who are more dedicated and are having a really hard time.

So I'll just say that.

I know my staff is, I know a lot of people in the city are, and I know I think pace has also the city attorney had a huge loss.

Not making excuses, I'm just saying the reality.

So one other question I have is did you all meet with the Rose Anam Center after the last?

So they sent us a letter and they're not supportive.

How did you address that?

And did you met with them once, or can you just talk to me about this relationship with the root?

We've met it makes me feel very nervous to have their letter of opposition for a resource in Denver that is so needed, and like I'm thinking about tomorrow, and we go to our budget workshop.

One of our policies that we want to have that our council member brought forward is to help with domestic violence because the rise has gone up.

So I feel like that's there's this conflict there.

So just can you talk to me about the conflict?

Yeah, so we've met with them a few times, and um one of those times was with other um victims' rights organizations.

That was prior to the last committee.

And I think there was confusion about that because it seemed like the person who attended from Rose Adam Center, in their like as a part of their job, that others who came to committee didn't know they didn't know about that, but we had no way of knowing that.

So, um, and then we and we and the reason that we met with the person originally that we met with was because they were on a list of people that were distributed an email from PACE from their government affairs person, and so that's where we got their name and why we did the outreach to them.

Um, and so we met with them initially before the last committee, and then since then we scheduled a meeting just meeting just with Rose Andam, where we walked through the changes that we were proposing.

We asked them what are the concerns that you have.

They brought up the pets issue as well, and we pointed to at that time what we thought we had addressed it, but then we got a little more clarity, and we now have actually addressed it, and uh and we talked through some of the other provisions of the bill.

They didn't indicate at that time that they were opposed.

We asked them if they had any additional feedback, which they did not provide, and the first time that we've heard back from them is in the letter that was sent to all of you, and I don't believe to actually us.

So, as far as feedback, we have not received the follow-up from Rose Andom on that.

And so, you know, we we we reached out, we wanted to have the meeting, we want to have these conversations, um, and I think, you know, some of the things we we need to remember, like Rose Annum does provide a very important service, um, and and the work that they do for the city is crucial.

But you know, I think we'd also have to take um a step back and look at you know who is on the board of Roseanne.

It is a lot of prosecutors, and that's not a bad thing.

I mean, that's that's fine, but it you just makes you wonder like where is the direction coming from.

That is concerning just for me, um, as I'm like looking at kind of the landscape here.

I will also say council president, I completely hear you about what the morale is, how are um how you know things how staff are very people are short staffed, they're not being paid, um, they're not getting raises and all of these things.

I think it doesn't though excuse the fact that there was um the way in which the information was shared was very inappropriate, and I don't think that excuses that I get not getting the the um feedback, and maybe in a in the manner in a timely manner that we would like, I get that that on face value, but the fact that it was sent to everybody else but the sponsors, I do not take that as an excuse as far as low staffing.

So um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I say something because I respect that the Rose Adam Center is a nonprofit that has been sucked into all of this, and so I'm not you know, I and I understand that um there's a lot of these things are technical and complex, right?

And so um, even when you work in domestic violence every day, the actual lining up of the versions of state law and everything else, this has been complicated for everybody.

Um, but I I do um want to point out that there are a lot of organizations that work with survivors in the city.

Roseandom is one, um, and I do want to point back to um the only other letter that we've gotten.

A lot of victim rights organizations have been very engaged in the state legislative session, and so it has been hard for us to get time with people and and sort of like get people dug in in the way that we would want.

Um, but the the letter that we got from violence-free Colorado um CFF.

It talks about sorry, what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm I don't go ahead.

Um says that they support aligning our code with state statute, promoting consistency and charging and prosecution.

They're concerned about preserving the ability to prosecute painless assault, which we are letting go, despite that concern that is remaining in the bill.

Um, and then they talk about um, we support and collaborate.

Sorry, I'm just trying to find the part of their letter that I'm trying to read.

I'm really rattled right now.

Um I'm just reading the letter that we got.

Um while expanding criminal penalties is often intended to reflect an understanding of the seriousness of domestic violence, these decisions don't occur in a vacuum.

Um factors like police training, mandatory arrest laws, available resources, and the judicial understanding of domestic violence dynamics all shape how these policies are applied in in practice.

Um in that context, low-level assert assault charges can and do result of criminalization of survivors.

Um we heard from a woman at public comment who talked about that that she was a domestic violence survivor living in her car, because she had been prosecuted and criminalized, and they are um their long-standing position from a survivor-centric perspective has been that DV cases are more appropriately handled in state court where there are typically more robust protections and resources available.

So that's the only other formal communication we've gotten from a survivor um representing organization.

So, for next steps, I just have questions on um from the information that we got this morning, and I I believe it got sent to all city council users, but it got sent early this morning, right?

It was in your inbox, the letter from Marley.

As opposed to just the one that this morning that came through at like 9 a.m., I think is what I'm looking at.

Right, as opposed to communications that happened last night.

Yeah, I'm just talking about the one at 9 a.m.

So what just gives me pause just so you all know is number two the catch-all provision under chapter 38.

So I would love clarity around that.

I would love the number three, thirty-four through forty-six, the wrongs to minors.

I don't understand that part, so I if you could have clarity around that, um, and then the number eight, which is basically number two, the catch-all provision, um, for all of those, and I I'll just say this on the record.

I know you too well, and I would have immense respect for what you do, and I don't think that you all intend to say that window peeping isn't a serious crime.

I don't think that you all intend to say escaping from jail is a serious crime.

I don't think you all meant to have wage theft as not a serious crime.

I think you all it's not excluded.

That's a misunderstanding.

So that's just where we need clarity because we're having one document say one thing.

I haven't had a chance to you text me the other day, and I really hadn't had a chance to dig into this.

I really I'll just be 100% honest.

I was so focused on prevailing wage this past weekend, and it's how it's passage on Monday, and like we were literally doing amendments at 2 30 in the afternoon that I did not, I did not build into my schedule the time that was needed for me to go through through this.

And I told you that I was like, I can't I I can't even believe how packed I had been.

So those were just, and I really want to say to both of you, um Lewis who's not here.

I don't believe that you all are trying to make it so Denver is in a safe city, and I really think that that's a narrative that I've been getting in my inbox from people who I don't represent, right?

It's not neighborhoods I represent that I'm getting these emails from from the um ROs.

I think you all are trying to make Denver a safe city.

I believe that all of you want to do what's best, and so I just want to go on the record and say that.

I just have these mixed information, and so we just I think if we can sit down, you know I've taken every briefing you've offered me.

Literally, I and then some and and talked about it.

So I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page because I feel good.

Choices that you made.

I feel good that you took out the fire code.

I'm glad.

I'm glad that you took out the um the that it would impact the derelict properties.

I all the things that I had were major concerns about.

You all made major changes to that bill and have satisfied my issues, and then I got this, and I was like, okay, so do we have a catch-all provision in chapter 38, and we just have to just delineate that out, and then I'll be I'll be good.

I can answer every one of these.

There is no longer, so yes, chapter 38 has the catch-all provision.

We've talked about that so many times.

We've listed out the only offenses that ever get charged, but we would look at the 10 days, and it's the list you guys have seen more than times now.

Smoking on 60 straight mall, can't be around public donation, etc.

This subpart of this document that I'm looking at, that's the one you're referring to.

Number two catch-all provision.

It says chapter 38 is where many of the city's criminal violations live, such as assault threats, weapons, impersonating officer, flourishing a weapon, unlawful accident schools or killing a police animal.

Those are all governed by camp.

They are not one of those is going to ten days.

So I don't know why we're even talking about this.

None of them falls under the catch-all.

I don't get it.

Um, and then it says there's no large city that has reduced their general penalty.

Westminster has no jail time for any municipal offenses.

Um that's not a reduction, that's just what they've always had.

Um, but there's a variety of different approaches.

The reason that we have like language in here that says and the injury does not rise to the level of a serious bodily injury is because of serious bodily injury is a felony, and the state constitution says the cities can't prosecute felonies.

Right.

Okay.

So that's the answer to that.

Um, the violation of a protective order.

We just talked about the fact that if it's a protective order for an individual, there's an up to 300-day sentence.

Okay.

Um threats.

This is the issue about pets, where I don't understand the idea that we should have talked about that.

Um harassment.

This provision has been found unconstitutional in a specific case that we have the citation for.

Okay.

Um, under unaligned state law, it was struck down as unconstitutional.

Our city law wasn't struck down because it wasn't the one being challenged, but it's the same language, it's unconstitutional.

Okay.

I don't want to sign off on an unconstitutional language in a bill.

I'm an attorney.

Um, we talked about flourishing, and again, the catch-all, which is only chapter 38, um, this list, most of the serious things on this list have state law analogs and are not going down to 10 days.

Okay.

So that answers everything in that document.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, thank you, Council President.

Uh Central, Councilmember Sawyer, Taurus, the queue is still open for folks who are online.

If you'd like to get into the Q, please let me know.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, you guys.

I want to just start by saying that I think we're talking about two very different things in this situation that we're in in this committee right now.

The first one is all of our shared frustration or the tactic from the mayor's office to delay providing information in order to hamper the legislative body's ability to do our job.

And this is all of us have experienced this.

It is not acceptable.

It is not okay.

We are separate branches of government for a reason, and it is absolutely unacceptable for any city agencies to be holding on to information, not providing it to us when we're asking questions in order to shape policy that is our charter responsibility to shape.

This has happened to every single person at this table.

It is a common tactic that I am finding after three years in this mayor's office, and it is absolutely unacceptable.

And so I want to be very clear to put that on the table right now.

I hear your frustration, I share your frustration, and you are not wrong.

That said, we are here to look at the specific language of a specific bill, to talk through the changes that need to be made under camp, and then the additional changes that you're proposing that are thoughtful and make sense.

So I think most of my questions have been answered at this point.

I think you know, I am very concerned about the section 38 comments, and so need to, I think understand that a little bit better.

Um, because while I'm really not concerned about window peeping having the 300-day sentence, I am very concerned about assault weapons, unlawful carrying of weapons, unlawful possession of dangerous weapons.

Those all have state analog stuff.

Those all have state analogs, those are state crimes.

I understand that.

If I can finish, I'm so sorry.

I just I know you feel very passionately about that, but I am gonna ask you to give me the respect that I deserve, which is to let me of course ask my questions.

So we got this document this morning.

We um I need to.

I believe that there are state equivalents to this.

I need to like see it.

I just need to, it is my job as we're you know, representing the residents of district five to ensure that I'm not just like missing a detail in this.

I need to just be able to see that.

Um the commission piece, I really like the idea of this commission.

I think it's a really creative and thoughtful way to get where we want to go with all of this.

Um, you know, we've had this conversation with the independent monitor's office about um the discipline rubric within um the department of safety.

That entire rubric was created by a commission that was put together that that we have stood by that has been absolutely fantastic.

Are there problems with it?

Maybe, I don't know.

That's a conversation going on right now, but the the reasons put forward for not changing that rubric were the process that was put in place to create that rubric in the first place, right?

So I think that's a fair analogy for what we're looking at here, right?

And so putting the process in place to create the uh criminal code in a way that is responsive to all of those different conversations is thoughtful and reasonable in exactly the direction we should go.

I would feel better if we had that information today, a committee.

Um, in terms of I think the 30,000-foot view picture, I am concerned about the sentiment that is exists in our city right now.

Again, tell you, I always say this to you guys with 95% certainty and 2.4% margin of error that the number one concern of the residents of district five is community safety.

And I do worry about without these I's dotted and T's crossed in specific conversation happening, the message that it is sending to our businesses who are very, very concerned, who see retail theft happening and cutting into their bottom line every minute of every day.

I, you know, one of the things I heard from businesses was, you know, we have someone come in and they shoplift, they get arrested, they go to get processed, and they're back in our store shoplifting the next day.

And that is actually not related to this bill at all.

There is no part of that process that is part of this bill right here, but that's the narrative.

And so I'm concerned about the message that we're sending to our community when that narrative is so far from the reality of the situation.

And I think it just speaks to the level of frustration that our businesses in particular, but also our residents are feeling kind of around the way our criminal code is administered by the courts, which are a totally separate branch of government that we have nothing to do with.

So like I am concerned about that.

I think that's real.

Um I really want to say thank you for the changes that you have made.

Um, thanks for hearing me and the city agencies on the concerns around things like the vacant and derelict properties ordinance and and um DDPHE's ability to enforce on our worst actors when it comes to living conditions and our under our rental registry.

Um, uh and excise and license.

So I do want to just ask city agencies, um, particularly excise and license and DDPH, if you guys would be willing to just can you tell me that you're good or identify for me if there are any follow-up concerns that we need to take a look at here.

Good morning, Alex Vidal, legislative liaison for the Department of Public Health and Environment, um, Chair Watson, um, council member Sawyer and sponsors.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

Really appreciate the sponsors um moving the majority of those sections of code to the commission.

Uh, really appreciate that.

That was a huge part of um our our concerns was um the number of provisions that we would have to defend from from the dias, and so we're really appreciate that.

We still have some remaining concerns with the ones that are pulled out specifically for lower sentences, um, in particular the noise ordinance.

So 36-6 is the main ordinance that we use to enforce um our noise limits.

Um uh lower penalty for that is highly concerning because um we enforce against companies that have um large, you know, revenue, so construction companies, entertainment companies, um, data centers, things like that.

Um, and so there's a company in uh Council number tourists' district that's gonna put on a series of concerts this summer.

They know that they're gonna violate the noise ordinance.

We know that they're gonna violate the noise it's they're comfortable with that because they can accept paying those administrative fines, and so um having uh higher penalties for that is something that we're concerned with, we're really like to see pulled out of the bill if possible.

Um, another one is interfering with the.

Alex, that just killed me.

I'm sorry, I just died inside a little when you just said that when you just gave that example.

But yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um public health officials interfering with public health officials in the conduct of their duties, and then also for animal uh enforcement officers.

Um, things like enforcing public health orders, um, things like hiding or destroying documents, hiding um physical things, physically interfering with their work.

Um we don't carry weapons, um, you know, and so we don't have police authority, and so uh provisions like this help keep our staff safe and also help us do our jobs when we need to do an investigation.

Um, the also smoking indoors.

This one is we're not quite sure that we're considering um kind of very early stages about doing some additional enforcement around businesses and residents and um residential settings to protect uh workers and tenants from secondhand smoke.

Um, we're not quite quite sure how this would affect, so we're still in the process of developing some plans there.

And then lastly, I just want to mention um most of the ordinances that were pulled out for kind of lower penalties are the ones that are enforced by our animal protection division.

Um we would like to see those moved over to the commission process um so that way those can be had a more thorough conversation individually rather than because I don't know the dozen or 20 or so provisions, and so having to defend all those from the microphone.

In particular, we're uh the quarantining of uh animals and handling of dead animals is something that um Josh just shared with me, is a particular concern with um sometimes companies doing things that are unsafe and could create outbreaks of things like rabies and things um for other animals and potentially other people, and so something else that we would like to see pull up.

Thank you, really appreciate that.

Molly, do you mind do you how are you guys?

Yeah, hi, thank you.

Molly dupliche and licensing and consumer protection.

Um, yeah, I think we're really thankful that we are most of our stuff has been pulled out of the catch-all, and so we still would be able to utilize a general penalty of 300 days, 999 dollars.

My last remaining kind of it's more of a question than it is a concern, which is just around the class five offenses and whether there is any um overlap or unintended consequences of how those that would impact how we utilize administrative citations.

Um, and so um it refers to civil infractions, and I mean it is just a question, and I don't think that we've gotten any clarity around what the impact of that is.

Can I answer it just as a reminder?

So, last committee too.

Um, the civil infraction is a state technical term of art, it refers to state law administrative violations, it does not impact city administrative violations.

It does not.

Okay, so just yeah, if that's if that's the impact, and we still have full ability to utilize administrative citations which go up to two thousand dollars, and in some cases we have the ability to go up to five thousand dollars.

So, as long as that's not impacted, um, then I think uh those two main concerns are addressed.

Um, as we as I have stated, the status quo of the flexibility that we have under the general penalty right now and the process that that um you know gives the court to utilize um you know options when businesses um get issued administrative cite or I'm sorry, criminal citations.

Um that works for us right now.

The status quo is not a problem, and I would just continue to reiterate that in a commission process.

Okay, appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um, are there any other city agencies that I feel like I know ZNIS was the one I was really concerned about, and that got taken out, so thank you very much for that.

I think that's probably it.

Um so I am on the fence on whether this should move out of committee or not, um, just due to the lack of clarity, which I do not think is the council members' council sponsors' fault at all around the commission piece.

So I'm still thinking through that.

I need another couple of minutes.

I know there's some other people in the queue.

Um, but again, want to say thank you and um appreciate the feedback from the city agencies on uh on the fact that that issue is is taken off the table.

So thanks, Mr.

Chair.

May I respond?

Real just what to one point real quick, Mr.

Chair.

Um, on the commission piece, I just I I forgot to say this when council president brought it up as well.

Um I will just note that we all did move out of um committee the um data center moratorium, which I'm also on, and we moved that out without knowing all the particulars around that working group and that is still being worked on.

And so I just want to level set on that front and knowing that there are instances where we have moved forward and allowed sponsors, um, mayor's office, other entities to kind of continue those deliberations and come up with um what that composition would look like.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilman Sorg, thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez Guterres, Councilmember Torres, and then um Councilman Flynn.

I'll I'll ask a few questions and I'll put you back in the queue.

If folks are online, once again uh last call um if you want to be added to the the queue.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I want to go back to Councilman Cashman's um comments, which I fully agree with, and um a lot of empathy, I think, for what you as sponsors have had to endure.

Um, this is not a kill committee, we don't have kill committees.

We should also not have stall committees, and that's what's happening right now.

It's baloney.

And Mr.

Chair, we also depend on you.

If you're, I think, intervening in what may be coming on contentious issues, but you're also not weaponizing or using this as a cell committee either.

So that I don't feel really comfortable with.

I think every time something has been brought to your attention that hadn't been brought to your attention before, it's usually been in committee or the day before, and that's not fair.

And so I I echo my colleagues who from the mayor's team, we should have um we should have a more clear and thoughtful perspective of what the mayor's administration thinks of this bill at this moment in time.

And that we don't is really concerning.

So I'm gonna support this moving out of committee.

If anything, pressure of our vote on the floor sometimes is the only thing that gets our actors involved in the way that they need to.

And so I'm sorry, Councilwoman Parity.

Um I am really comfortable with the consideration of a commission.

Um for CPCC, the mayor appoints, but council confirms president names council members to that commission.

Um so whatever like that needs to look like, um, it needs to be experts who can weigh in on that, not just I think people who have a personal interest right in in this.

It is people who know these individual claims, these individual charges, and what we're talking about in difference because I think all of us want to know and be able to see the hundred page list of charges and is this covered by camp and is it not, and what happens with it if not, right?

So I appreciate um that and I'm comfortable with that being determined after.

Um so that's I think all that I'm I feel like I need to say.

Um, it never feels good to feel like um your ambushed the day of when you've been wanting information, um, and it hadn't been coming until the day of, and then everybody gets all worked up.

Um and it's happened more than once on this, um, and I don't think it's entirely the sponsor's um fault or or responsibility.

So um I'll be I guess hoping it gets out of committee today.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Torres.

Um, Councilmember Flynn, I'll come back to you, but I just wanted to make one quick statement, and then I have a question from Pace because I think it's important to hear from them.

Thank you, Councilmember Torres, for your your statement.

I like to say, as the chair, knowing that this is a highly uh sensitive and emotional topic, I've been asking uh the administration as well as each of the departments to please provide in writing, and it's been um beyond the last week, but right in writing what their concerns are at.

Um I've had um individual discussions with agencies who have communicated to me their concerns, and I've said come together, put it in writing to the council sponsors as well the council members, and I will continue to advocate uh for that.

Um, and them, I've sat and spoke with them, had uh two different discussions with them since the last um uh committee meeting, um, met with them online I think two weeks ago, um, and then they sent the letter this morning.

So they sent a letter first, um, I think before the last committee, they then sent another letter, I think it was this morning or yesterday, I can't remember one day, restating their opposition, but my discussion with them was stating any thoughts um because it was clear elevated by council members that their input was important.

Please communicate in time for there to be a response from all council members.

This is not an individual discussion um with me, specifically.

And at the last committee meeting, I spoke to uh email that I received from a different um organization.

Um I received another email from Violence Free Colorado.

I know, Councilmember Parity, you share parts of an email that you received from them.

Um I'm not going to read the email that we receive.

We'll make sure I don't know who all received that email because most of our stuff are blind copied, um, but they sent an email stating their position is neutral, and they had some additional information in there.

I at least want to make sure that on the record that I'm communicating what I'm what I'm hearing, but I have no idea who else is hearing stuff because most stuff that comes to city council is BCC'd, and so my assumption are these organizations as well as the city are communicating to all city council members, including the sponsor.

So I at least wanted to put that on the table.

My question for pace, and I want to provide them an opportunity, um, director.

Um, if you don't mind, come forward quickly.

I think we have about 13 minutes.

I know I wanted sponsors to have so a final statement, and it looks like Councilmember Council President Pretemer Americanly looks like I missed you.

So I'm gonna come back to you, and then I'll open back up to the sponsors, but um Marley, there's been some discussions concerning your letter.

Can you provide a little bit of background as to your process and then provide a walk through?

You don't have to go into details, we have the full letter.

Once again, not a kill committee, this is a dialogue uh committee on the merits of this bill, whether it should go to the floor or not.

If you don't mind responding to the timeline, narrative, communication, as well as what your concerns that are outstanding, um uh by the floor to you.

Thank you, uh Council or Chair.

Marley Bordowski uh with the city attorney's office.

First, I want to thank the sponsors for their continued dialogue.

You are absolutely right that you have been engaging with us and having ongoing communication, so I want to thank you for that.

The communications have been um very robust, and you have taken many of our suggestions and comments and concerns into account and made changes in the bill.

So I want to recognize that and thank you for that.

Um I also want to apologize to the entire committee for my role in the chaos that happened this morning.

Uh, that was not my intent.

I knew that I had promised some things in writing to various people on this committee, including you, Councilman Cashman.

I know I was very tardy in getting you that.

I was trying to respond to the most current version of the bill and not an old version in respect of the sponsors, and so I apologize for any role I played in in what has happened today.

Um, I met with uh the sponsors last Monday.

I don't remember the date, not this Monday, but the one before.

Um I shared, I think, all if not many most if not all of the the concerns that are in this document with them on that date.

Um I have reiterated my requests to them repeatedly in every in every meeting that I've had, including my concerns about the wrongs to minors pieces, the jurisdictional barrier that's created there, including my concerns about the violation violation of the protection orders.

I shared this document, I shared my screen with this document on it during that meeting a week and a half ago.

Um that said, it's I the my concerns remain.

Um I will do want to talk just quickly about the list that's on the last page.

Chapter 38, as has been pointed out, is much smaller than the whole code for sure, and I appreciate that the catch all now just applies to that.

Um, the problem is not just picking out a chapter 38 ordinance in and of itself, you have to compare it to the state statute.

And I'm gonna say this, it's not an excuse, it's just reality.

We have been very shorthanded.

Most of the people, including my leadership staff have been having to carry dockets lately.

We are have no one to do this work, and so we're doing it as quickly and as best we can.

So I apologize.

This is just a sampling.

What we were looking at when we were doing the comparison, and maybe this is not what the sponsors meant, but what we're doing is kind of following camp's language, which requires identical elements between the state and the municipal charges.

So, for example, I'm just gonna use peeping, window peeping as an example.

Um, the state version of window peeping requires an element of for sexual gratification that we don't have in our current in our local ordinance, and so under the camp rationale, those would not be identical.

And if that if the if the sponsors intend to follow the camp, you know, identical elements language, then that we need to revisit that.

If there's a different definition that the sponsors want to use, um, and more you know, similar conduct kind of thing.

Then we just need to suss that out.

And that's that's why this list is so comprehensive, because the elements are not the same, if that makes sense.

So I will pause there.

Thank you so much, Marley.

We're gonna have folks come back into uh the queue, and I'm looking at council member faces.

They may have some questions.

I'll leave it up to them.

Um, Marley, they have questions for you.

I thought I was important.

I'll state also very clearly um uh our city employees are under stress, as we all have stated.

Um I know everyone around this table supports all of our city employees, and I thank you for your good work.

Um I know Councilmember Parity, actually, Councilmember Flynn is back into the queue.

Councilmember Council President Pro Tem, I skipped you, and may I ask for you to come first.

Councilmember Flynn, and then uh councilmember parody, I'll have you um do a closing statement before we call the question.

It's gonna be by roll call.

Um so Alyssa will go through that process.

Uh Councilmember Council President, please.

Uh Tem, I apologize.

Thank you.

Thank you, um, committee chair, and I'll just be brief because a lot of my questions have already been um answered, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of my colleagues.

Um I do want to thank the council sponsors um and where you have come to and really uh responding and the thoughtfulness in the retail licenses and the impact that it has for um for some really bad actors.

So I just want to say thank you for listening.

Um I also really like the idea of having a commission.

I think it's a great solution.

I know that there are details to be figured out and um I have confidence that that would be something that we would see um obviously before it comes to the floor, but I just wanted to thank the council sponsors um for bringing this forward for working on it, and um for my colleagues' questions.

Um it's I think been a really robust dialogue, and I just appreciate everybody being in it.

Um so I think oh, I already said uh the creation of the committee is my um I really I like that idea.

So I will be short.

I know that there are other closing comments, but I just wanted to say thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember for Tem.

Council Member Flynn.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I want to uh because I neglected to do this uh in my first round.

Uh recognize the great number of changes that you've made in responsiveness, and I really do appreciate that.

Whether I agree with the final version or not, is beyond the point that I I recognize all the changes that happened, but I think that illustrates exactly why coming back six times was necessary, um, and councilwoman right.

I mightily disagree that uh that we're stalling.

If this had passed out of committee the first time it was before us, none of these changes will be in here, and that's what this room is for exactly that.

It's it's not baloney, it's sausage.

I guess that's the rationale.

I would I agree that everything is ready for the floor in this except for the committee.

I would want to see how that's gonna be appointed, who are gonna be the members, uh especially on the regulatory side, before I would say it's ready for the floor, and having been in the legislature, you wouldn't have voted out a bill that we do all the time.

Parentheses in this, we'll fill this in, we'll fill in the process later.

That does happen.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Uh but I I would vote it out to the floor other than the the commission.

So I appreciate I really do.

And that illustrates why coming back six times was necessary.

I don't care whose fault it was.

I recognize that working with the administration is difficult, uh, and lack of collaboration.

I'm not saying it's your fault that we're back.

I'm saying it's good that we came back six times.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um councilmember Glenn.

Uh Councilmember parody, final statements, and then we're gonna call the the question and have a vote on it.

If it's okay as one of the sponsors, I'll go first just really quick and then turn it over to Parity if that's okay.

Please do.

Um thank you for all of that, Councilman Flynn.

And I will just say the fact that it has been here six times is not just because we needed to come back here every single time, because I will say from the onset, we have been begging, begging for feedback, and it's not because of the committee.

I mean, well, yeah, it's partly partially, it's because we keep coming back here, but it shouldn't have to be that way.

We should have gotten the feedback from the beginning.

We should have gotten the list of offenses that we asked for from the beginning.

We asked, tell us what are the most serious offenses.

What are the offenses that you are the most concerned with, that we can make sure we address, and that you are still have the your prosecutorial authority on those that you should still have, such as domestic violence, which I will remind everyone, we made that change before even being asked to.

We didn't, it wasn't a change, it was part of the bill from the beginning.

So we recognize that there were those issues, and we asked our partners, we asked Pace.

What are those offenses?

It took pulling teeth to get that information.

That is the part.

That is why we came back six times.

It's not because we were we were like doing all these things, and like we were operating blindly, and so I I just want to I I have to say that because we tried so hard so that we wouldn't have to come back six times, because believe me, I would have loved to have been at this point back then.

Right.

I would have loved that, would have loved to have an engagement in that conversation and collaboration and be at this point.

I will say, and I was joking about this, but yes, there are oftentimes bills get voted out of committee, and they'll say I'm a yes for today, but I'll have to see what happens when it gets to the floor if there are additional changes made.

And maybe that's because they only have a few months to work with, and that's probably why, right?

Um, but I appreciate that sentiment, and I appreciate the fact that everyone in the committee has realized um the work that has been done.

I do appreciate the agencies.

Um, you know, I know that it is hard for us to also turn information back and forth and back and forth, and we're all operating from very um little resources right now, all of us, absolutely.

What I want to make sure is that we are all being good stewards, that we all we have, and this is something we'd say at the Capitol all the time, all I have is my word.

At the end of the day, all I have is my word and your integrity, and that's what I'm asking for as we go forward in this work.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I really greatly apologize, Councilmember Flynn.

Um, we're at the last two minutes.

Can we greatly improve the process greatly improved the bill I want to admire?

Councilmember Flynn, I appreciate it.

Uh Councilmember Parity, please, and then we'll go to the vote.

Totally different to say, which is that I want to remind everybody what the bill's actually about.

Um, and I also want to say that this long list of offenses that again we have never seen before in 90 this morning, and and it's not as though anything about the bill has changed that would have made these not things that could be raised before.

If these things, if it turns out some of them, there's actually cases from our municipal courts saying that they do overlap with state law.

But if it turns out that we've missed some of the alignment under camp, we can run another bill.

Like if if we get court decisions that say that elements don't align that we didn't expect or something like that, we can go back and fix that.

This doesn't have to be the last time we legislate about our criminal code, and it shouldn't be.

It's a huge code, but at some point we have got to stop this carousel.

Um because right now, for our municipal only offenses, that list of incredibly minor petty crimes that we've been over and over again.

I think we are losing track of the fact that people get sentenced for those crimes in our municipal courts very routinely, and that until we pass this bill, they can still be sentenced instead of 10 days to 15 days, right?

Which to a judge may not seem like a big difference, and that means they will lose their Medicaid.

And so the longer we delay passage, the more we are continuing that revolving door that costs 250 dollars a night for people.

75% of those prosecuted in the municipal courts are living out or below the federal poverty line.

That goes 12,000 prosecutions a year, seventy-five percent.

Um, and so that is the actual reason that we are running the bill.

I am concerned that that may be the reason we are why we are getting so many headwinds on the bill, is because there's a desire not to make that change because that is the central change in the bill.

I would really like to see this get out of committee today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Perity.

I'll remind the committee once again.

Our county courts have stated they are operating under camp and are not that they are operating under camp and they are satisfied with the ability to execute with or without this bill.

I at least want to make sure I really do have a permit.

I'm talking about municipal only offenses.

I hear you.

And I'm I'm I'm just trying to make sure we're being clear.

Um, what's the process for uh doing this as a roll call vote?

State that's a roll call and ask for a motion.

So we'll need a motion and a second uh for us.

So moved by council president, second by council member Torres.

This is a roll call.

Alyssa, please uh let's go through the list.

Council members Flynn.

Uh May.

Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Aye.

Aye.

Sendable.

Aye.

Sawyer.

Aye.

Cortis.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair Watson.

Maybe advice.

Thank you so much.

I believe we have two items on consent.

Um, this bill will be moved to the floor.

Thanks everyone for joining us for our meeting today.