The Community Planning and Housing Committee with Denver City Council.

Your community planning and housing committee starts now.

Welcome to the community planning and housing committee of Denver City Council.

Today is May 19th.

I'm Sarah Perry.

I'm one of your council members at large and the committee chair, and I will start with introductions to my right.

If council members are on your right.

Good afternoon, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

I mean, sorry, District 5.

Flora Ritres, Bucky District 7.

I mean, Samuel North West Denver District, right?

And I think we have a colleague online as well.

Maybe two.

Alright, hi, Flamengo.

Thank you.

I like your card.

I was gonna say.

You added that to your outfits since morning.

The good card.

Alright, so the first thing we have today, we've got two action items, starting with a rezoning that um Fran is ready to present.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, members of committee.

Uh, my name is Fran Peñafiel.

I'm a principal city planner with community planning and development.

And today I'm gonna present an overview of the rezoning request for Loreto Heights.

Arts and Venues is requesting to rezone the current PUD G24 and PUD G25 zone district into a two new PUDs that are gonna be PUD G41 and PUD G42.

As you know well, in this presentation, we're gonna go over the location and context, then I'm gonna touch into existing and proposed zoning, we're gonna go over the process, and then finally we're gonna look at the review criteria.

Um this property is located in Council District 2, which is represented by Council Member Flynn, and it is in the Harvey Park South neighborhood.

Um here I'm gonna take a quick minute uh to go over a little bit of the background so that then we can move faster because you're gonna see that it's actually a pretty simple when it looks complicated, but it's a very simple rezoning.

Um the sites were originally rezoned in 2021.

If you recall, a few of you were here after we approved the L'Oreal Heights Small Area Plan.

This rezoning primarily consists of a targeted adjustment of the PUD boundaries and the reorganization of the existing PUD framework into updated PUD G41 and PUD G42.

As a reminder, a PUD or Plan Unit Development is a customized zoning district that establishes site-specific land use and development standards tailored for a particular property.

Here in this aerial view, um, you can see that the sign showing to the west is what it's called currently PUD G25, which is proposed to be rezoned to PUD G42.

Uh, for the purposes of this presentation and make it easier to follow, I'm gonna refer to the PUD G25 as the residential PUD and the PUD G24 as the campus score.

Just to make it easier.

Let's numbers.

Um so all of this rezoning is simply, and I'm gonna get into the detail and I'm gonna show you a more detailed image, is to move a small parcel that it's only 14,000 square feet from one PUD to the other.

So it's gonna move from the residential PUD into the uh the campus core.

So here you can see this is assuming uh if you're familiar with Loreto Heights, you can see there are the library and the theater, and that little parcel that's there that it's owned by the city.

It's this 14,000 square feet uh property that used to be in the residential PUD, and now uh the applicant is requesting to move it to the uh campus core.

Let me see here in my notes.

Uh yeah, and this is gonna create a new sub-area.

Then I'm gonna go into the details.

As previously mentioned, the current zoning of the site is PUD G24 and PUD G25.

If you recall from the rezoning from 2021, it was a bigger area.

So we did rezone back then in 2021 that uh area that you see there that it's UMX3.

So that one went to a standard district, and then also like the CMPE 2.

Uh, that one to the south, that's where the DPS school is.

So those areas where we're zoning to standard districts, and then what you see in yellow is what we're uh rezoning now, but it's the two PUDs.

Um the land use of the site is currently mostly vacant, with the exception, of course, of some of the historic buildings, some uh few public and quasi-public buildings, uh, an office building, and there's a few residential buildings that are built to the north.

Here you have a little bit of context.

So you have, of course, the iconic admin building, and this is a theater and library, the buildings that we're kind of referencing here because of this parking uh, this site that we're gonna rezone, the purpose of it is a parking.

I'm gonna go into that in more detail, and it's to serve the theater and the library.

And this is just some photos of the context surrounding.

So you have some residential, of course, like to the north, and well, you mostly have residential to the north and to the west, and then you have some commercial and federal.

Okay, so let's look at the proposed zoning.

These maps highlight where the boundaries are proposed to be changed for each PUD.

Here we list all the proposed changes to the PUD.

There are no changes proposed to the residential PUD other than the boundary change, and on the campus core PUD, there are no changes proposed to sub area A and B.

The only proposed changes are in this new area that we've created that it's sub-area C.

Where we're proposing to reduce the allowed heights to allow for a transition to a residential area to the west, and we're proposing a new setback, a new side interior pole plane.

So if you can see my cursor here, that's the property when you look at the, of course, here at the campus core, and then here it is this little rectangle here.

So we're just taking it out and giving it to the other PUD, and this PUD is not touched.

So the residential PUD won't be touched.

Here a little bit more detail.

So this design standards in sub-area C ensure that any future structure on the parcel would provide an appropriate transition to the protected district located in the north and west.

These standards will continue to guide the design and massing of the proposed structure to maintain compatibility with the neighboring residential areas.

So again, no changes, and then only in this sub-area.

We thought it would be important because it is right next to residential, to have some to be careful so that we don't create any uh so we have a good transition to the residential.

In case uh, I'm sure that um arts and venues can speak if you have any questions, but for now they're just planning like a surface parking, but in the future they would like to do a two-story parking, so we want to make sure that when they build that two-story parking, it doesn't, it has transition to the residential.

And again, here saying that PUDG42, that it's a residential uh doesn't have any changes.

It stays the same.

Okay, so now looking at the process, um, informational notice of this rezoning was sent out in January 22nd of the 27th of this year.

We presented at planning board on May 6th, and the property was noticed for that hearing on April 21st.

We're here today, and we're hoping to get to City Council by June 29th.

At the planning board hearing on May 6th, the board voted unanimously to recommend approval.

And so far, we haven't received any comments.

I should say when I did this notes and send this presentation, we had no comments.

Uh, I did receive one comment that you're gonna get uh for city council from uh someone that had some concerns about traffic.

So I'll make sure that you have that in your packet moving forward uh before the public hearing.

So now let's look at the review criteria.

For a rezoning to be approved by city council, it must be found that the requested map amendment is consistent with three standard review criteria plus our additional five review criteria for a PUD.

Our role as staff planners is to evaluate the requested district, in this case the PUD G41 and PUD G42 against these eight criteria.

The first criteria is uh consistency with adopted plans.

There are three plans applicable to this rezoning.

We have comprehensive plan 2040, we have Blueprint Denver, and we have the Loreto Heights area plan from 2019.

Well, the proposal is to rezone all of the area that I showed you, like both PUDs.

I'm gonna focus in this presentation in the small site, how the small site complies with the review criteria, but of course, you know you have all the detail in the staff report.

So you can look at more detail there.

A stated in the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals in the Comp Plan 2040.

This map amendment will continue to support the efforts to preserve and reuse existing historical buildings in Loreto Heights area.

Now looking at Blueprint Denver.

The parcel that is moving from the residential PUD to the campus core PUD falls within the special district context.

The same context assigned to most of the campus core PUD.

The proposed rezoning is consistent with the special district context, land direction as it will continue to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings and new residential and commercial development in a campus setting.

As you can see on this map, the parcel proposed to be moved from residential PUD to the campus core PUD is identified as campus in the future place map in Blueprint Denver.

The proposed rezoning will continue to address the historic core of the former Loreto Heights campus with the preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic buildings and new residential and commercial development in the campus setting.

The proposed zone district continues to be consistent with the future place guidance mapping this area.

Blueprint Denver in the land use and build form section provides some additional strategies on adaptive reuse.

This proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver as the PUDs will continue to facilitate and support the adaptive reuse and the existing buildings on the site.

The proposed rezoning supports the city's goal to reduce climate impacts by supporting and facilitating the adaptive reuse of the existing buildings and amenities.

Blueprint Denver also provides guidance on when we should allow for the use of custom zoning.

In this case, due to the many unique attributes of the property, including the challenging topography and the variety of remaining historic resources located in the center of the site, there is no standard zone district that can address the site's unique and extraordinary circumstances.

Therefore, the use of a PUD is consistent with the recommendations of Blueprint Denver.

Now looking at the Loreto Heights small area plan, consistent with Blueprint Denver, the neighborhood context and future place type designation remain unchanged.

The subject site is identified within the special district neighborhood context and as part of the campus future place type.

The residential PUD is characterized by a mix of low, low, medium, and high residential designations.

With recommended building heights ranging from two and a half to three stories.

The campus core PUD is designated as campus future place type with allowable building heights up to five and eight stories.

With the addition of the subject parcel, the future place type designation remains unchanged.

The campus definition emphasizes the importance of transition, stating that when adjacent to low intensity development, the campus should transition gradually to respect the surrounding neighborhood.

Consistent with that guidance, sub-area C include specific development standards intended to ensure that any future structure provided an appropriate transition to a lower residential zoning to the north and the west.

So that's what I was saying that here we have those setbacks and the lower height that would allow for that transition.

Now looking at the public interest, the proposed rezoning would further the public interest through implementation of city adopted plans, including the Loreto Heights small area plan.

The change in boundaries in the PUD will continue to facilitate the preservation and reuse of some of the existing structures on the former campus.

And then for the third criteria of the standard review criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent statements.

And as you know, with a PUD, we're actually call on to give more refined reflection on this.

So I'm gonna move on to the five additional review criteria for a PUD.

The first is criteria A.

The PUD district should be consistent with the intent and purpose of such districts stated in Article 9, Division 9.6, which is where we house PUDs within the Denver zoning code.

And it lists some specific reasons under which we should utilize a PUD.

We believe that in this particular case it is appropriate because this site has a special characteristics related to the scale of development, the topography, as well as the timeline of development that calls for a more customized approach to create successful outcomes.

Now criteria B says that the PUD should comply with all applicable standards for PUD.

Embedded in the PUD, there's a line that says it shall comply with all the applicable standards and the criteria.

Now criteria C says that the development proposed on the subject property is not feasible under any other zone district and would require an unreasonable number of number of variances and waivers and conditions.

As you know, certain areas of this development were rezoned in 2021 into standard districts, as I mentioned before, the MX and the campus district to the side, to the south.

But this PUD requires customization of different standards districts to meet the overall intent of the development.

In this case, we actually needed a PUD to create the most successful outcome through the combination of building forms and uses.

Alright, now criterion D.

Does the PUD establish permitted uses that are compatible with existing land use adjacent to the subject property?

The uses allowed on this site are consistent with either the SSU, SRH, URX, and the campus zone district.

These are not allowed uses in the BUD.

There are not allowed uses in the BUD that are not part of these districts.

And given the scale of this site, we believe that some of the campus uses embedded within it are appropriate, appropriately applied as well.

Finally, the BUD establishes permitted building forms that are compatible with the adjacent existing building forms.

Similar logic.

The setbacks and building forms restrictions ensure appropriate relationship to adjacent properties and historic character of the campus score and surrounding neighborhood.

We believe that the proposed rezoning meets criteria E as well.

So finally, um, finding that all eight review criteria have been met.

CBD recommends that the committee move this to a vote for city council.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and we have here arts and venues for any other questions.

Thank you so much.

Um I will start the queue with Council Member Flynn whose district is in.

Uh, I'm sure.

I do have a question mostly an observation.

Um that is just how much effort it takes to make a tiny little adjustment in the boundary of the PUD, but this is something that makes a lot of sense.

And I'm I would certainly I'm not a member of this committee, but I'm certainly in favor of sending it to the floor.

Uh it certainly makes sense to preserve the views and to provide that buffer.

Uh that's all related to the theater development, which is why arts and venues is sponsoring it.

So I'd be happy to see this on the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um, Councilmember Almidra's your next.

Thank you.

So I didn't follow exactly.

So the admin building will be demolished, I shouldn't.

No, okay.

No.

We're not touching any buildings.

Okay.

So this is just a small sliver of land, like 14,000 square feet.

That currently were part of the residential PUD.

So they were just kind of the street goes there.

Like it was just next to a street.

And um we talked about different ways that we because there's many ways that we could have gone about this.

Like we could have changed uh the use in the residential PUD.

We could have allowed for the parking use in the PUD in the residential PUD, but then that opened a door of having more parking in other areas that we didn't want to see.

So we decided that it was better to just change the boundary to this one be included and have a use that it's already allowed in the core PUD, but no, no buildings being touched, no, so this existing context with the house and apartment building on slide 10 that doesn't exist.

Let me the existing context is actually just vacant land.

So this these two images are on the outside, so that's like a very nearby, but not outside.

Yeah, yeah.

This is me trying to like, I thought that maybe I need to make it more clear, I should say.

Like the red is like what's on the development and what's in blue is outside of the so it's like the context of context surrounding.

Um how did there like a TDM plan that determined how much parking was needed, or how was that decided?

That's a question, I think.

That's a question for our design.

You might have to come up to the microphone and then introduce yourself, please.

Uh arts and venues in coordination with the sorry introduce yourself first.

Thank you so much.

I apologize.

No worries.

Uh Matt Young, Denver Arts and Venues, and we're working with the DOTI interagency team who's implementing our contract.

Uh, their design team and consultants have provided uh uh performed a transportation mobility study um based on the whole campus, including the library and a potential amphitheater.

Uh and then as we refine the scope, it got down just to the theater.

We refined the scope of the quantity of seats in the theater, and another parking mobility study was done to accompany that and justify the parking garage and quantity of spaces.

Okay, and then um in that TDM plan.

What other types of plans were there?

Is there like bike mobility, like what is the trans transportation plan in this area in general to raise on like such a large amount of space for parking?

So can you speak to my what other plans are there for?

So on the north side of uh the development where we're gonna work with west side um and the metro district there to get an RTD stop, and then uh bike uh there's um 25 bike racks throughout the campus just on our property, um, and then the adjacent streets to the south of the theater all have uh public parking.

Okay.

That's hopeful.

And then what about um is there a vehicle charging requirements for this parcel that might be?

The parking garage will have uh electric vehicle um charging stations, quantity based on uh CASR's uh ordinance, and then um we'll also have EV ready um stations to add add EV charging in the future.

And so for this whole new development, there will be one R T D bus stop now.

That's all in progress.

We're working with the Metro District on that, so it's not there yet.

Um but but that's in progress.

And so do you know like how many seats in the theater versus how many parking spots are in this?

700 seats in the theater, 215 parking spots in the parking garage.

Okay, so everyone else is expected to get there in other ways, correct, or park in on public parking, okay.

Yes, and the the um transportal mobility plan had the quantity of spaces adjacent of public parking uh in the right of way adjacent to the theater.

I don't remember that quantity, but it's it's in the three digits, it's a hundred low hundreds, I believe.

And then the housing has a separate TDM plan.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you.

Um that's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, committee chair.

And I'll just quickly follow up and ask if you could um email to the committee members or whomever I can get it out to everybody, the actual uh study, parking study.

We would love to see that.

Yes, so we'll follow up with that.

Thank you.

Um I have Madame Protam next next and last in Q.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, and thank you for asking some of those questions.

Um I had a just what is it currently?

What is the what is currently in the in this parcel of land?

It's vacant.

It's just vacant land.

I was trying to look and see, I couldn't tell like what it is.

So it'll have just the accesses at one access point in and one access point out.

Yeah, so um you can see uh well, it's hard to see in the map, but so the street goes like right next to the look.

Um it's kind of like the road that divides the PUD, like the residential PD from the compass score.

Um what's interesting is like the there's a lot of topography in that street, so it's like it's like the the garage, the parking garage when it's built.

It's not gonna be very intrusive because it goes up, and then you can see the library and the theater up there.

So it's it's a good spot for it because it's not gonna be super disruptive with the residential that has like all the topography on the to the west.

But yeah, right now it's vacant.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, anybody else have any questions before we all right?

Great.

I will take a motion in a second.

Move by soy or second by Madam President.

Um, anybody here?

Thumbs up from all the committee members for all the room.

Great.

All right, thank you so much, Van.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um, the next thing that we have is a presentation by some of our colleagues.

Um we got a little preview of it in budget and policy.

Um, this is number 0686 lobbying reform with Councilmers Torres and Gonzalez Cocherez.

Um, and Lewis, although she is out of the conference, and then um the clerk's office.

No, when you guys are settled, behind us.

Well, you guys are settled, the folks from the clerk's office can show it themselves along.

The gentleman can make some here.

I'm sorry, the leading with the team there.

I think you guys have to pass lines or something.

All right.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, and thank you to the community planning and housing committee for accommodating us.

Um, we appreciate it.

This is not usually the topic that this committee would be very popular.

Sorry.

Anyone is watching and curious, this is coming to this committee just because our um our schedules have been so jam-packed, and this was kind of where we had some space.

So no, this is not about uh planning or housing exactly.

But it could be this.

We get lobbied about it.

All right, go ahead, guys.

Thank you so much.

Uh well, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um we are here to formally present uh the changes and updates to the lobbying ordinance.

Um I want to let um quarter and his team um introduce themselves, but uh just want to thank the committee we were at budget and policy last week.

We um had great, I think, dialogue about some decision-making points that we want to share uh with you all as well.

Councilman, do you want to say anything?

No, I don't think I have anything else to add.

I feel like we'll get the presentation you all will get updated on some of the those decision points, and I think we're ready to go.

Okay, um, let's do introductions and then I'll do a quick intro.

Sure.

I'll start uh Andy Security's Chief Deputy City Clerk, Clerk and Recorders Office.

Paul is Denver Club and Recorder.

Nick Man, the campaign finance and minister for the Denver Clerk and Recorders office.

Um I will say it's been a um a really good opportunity to work with this team as they've been able to see over several years what does and does not get reported, um, more likely does not get reported when it comes to lobbying activity, which um I think uh we're all very interested in making sure has um greater accountability and transparency.

Um so we started talking uh last year, and the team has done a really good job.

Um, just trying to thread a needle on some responsible language.

So I'll turn it over to um Andy and/or the clerk andor Nick uh and uh walk through the slides.

Do you want to do a little intro?

Yeah, sure.

I mean, I really appreciate the partnership and the willingness to hammer out some of these things, especially creating like a foundation and a framework in which to operate, because when you don't have that, there's no guidance, and when there's no guidance, there's just it's chaos.

And I think at the end of the day, um, you know, my office and our our office is committed to a larger vision of uh cultural participation and basically restoring faith in the democratic process.

And that doesn't include voting, that also includes just faith in representative government, right?

And you know, voting in elections, obviously, but also uh faith in public service, which is uh as eroded.

And if you look at the the the spiritual part of this, that that the the faith in elected leaders and elected office is at an all-time low.

The cons the conspiracy theories, the misinformation, things like that, uh, you know, false narratives, examples of like rare stories that are applied to the whole, you know, it's it's an honorable thing to be elected by the people and to represent and work on behalf of the people.

It absolutely is, and I think it's you know, the restoration of that faith in government, that faith in um in in what we do on behalf of the people, requires transparency, right?

Um I think restoring that trust requires transparency.

Um also making it easier for folks who have any question or any doubt about the intent of government or representatives of government to be able to easily access that information without having to take a research methods class to be able to do it.

We did this with campaign finance with Math Light.

We simplified it.

We increased the tools and the capability for folks to be able to access things like uh campaign finance.

The larger vision of that was and still is um uh things like lobbying, like contracts, uh, and everything behind that.

So, uh, you know, this is something that's that's it's always been you know important for us in terms of creating that trust that transparency with the public, but uh, you know, making sure there's a framework in which to operate if there isn't, then so these are good these are great push for steps.

Is it a one size fits all is the end all be all no?

I think there's a lot of learning that we have to have.

So with that.

I did also want to point out uh Lori from the Board of Ethics is also here.

Uh, thank you, graciously giving us some time just because I know it blends sort of near, and there were some questions around that.

So um I appreciate you joining us as well.

Um I'll go sort of click quick through this um because I know you've all sort of received this, but um really why is the reform needed as the clerk touched on.

Um the law is pretty dated and confusing, it provides fails to provide meaningful transparency.

Um we notice some opportunity uh gaps uh over some of the bigger, more spicy fights uh that have come in front of you with some outside spending to identify that.

Um really the goal is to increase transparency and local decision making, um, provide clear and relevant information, the public and the lobbying community, um, aligns with best practices, and then establishes really a fair and consistent enforcement model based on campaign finance.

Um new disclosure requirements, compensation will be reported by client per period, so we can roll up and see how much is being spent in sort of those those big ramp up cases or generally across categories.

Um, disclosure activity to identify which covered officials were lobbying, uh lobbied which uh which client they were lobbied on behalf, and then if if available council bills, ordinances, uh, different different pieces, but really who was lobbied in what period and by whom is really the goal, and so you can sort of see on a report.

Um additionally, um lobbyists will have to identify themselves and a client when they're contacting you for um meetings or public testimony, things like that.

So you're aware ahead of time, um, so it's not a surprise.

Um grassroots lobbying, so the spending on public campaigns to urge your officials and contacts.

Um, I think we've seen it on TV ads, billboards, radio ads, etc., to sort of sway your vote.

This also would extend to the mayor's prerogatives of veto or or signing legislation.

Um creating clear clear and consistent um who can be lobbied.

So this is covering elected and appointed officials.

Uh, does not include career service employees.

Um again, all obligations will fall on the lobbyist.

Um, that is what they're being paid for.

To do also on top of lobby is file the correct paperwork.

Um, and really there's no additional obligation on you all on this, other than maybe if you feel like you've been lobbied, sending them our way uh to make sure they are doing it correctly, and or if you feel like they've really gone astray filing a complaint against the lobbyist that will be adjudicated by hearing officer.

Um clarify who a lobbyist is, so it really is a person who receives compensation for lobbying.

Um, if it's part of their salary, that would be included starting at a thousand dollars.

Um, and then really current exemptions, volunteer lobbyists would not be included if you're lobbying um as a public official that would not be covered, and then um representing themselves even if they are lobbyists if they're coming to you for a rezoning question or historic designation or lobbying on behalf of themselves, that wouldn't be covered under this.

Um this is an old deck, so I know that there is a discussion on sort of timeline, and I'll let you sort of figure out their discuss where everyone landed.

But the creation of a cooling off period, um I think we've landed sort of close to the ethics code, um, and sort of timing and the really preventing the revolving door of influence.

Um you can't roll off counsel and immediately go be a lobbyist right away, and or you know, an agency head or or someone in that sort of vein.

Um, be very clear that aids are not included in this language.

Um, and then just an improved enforcement uh protocol and language for us, um, really sort of taking the the enforcement directly out of mine or Nick's hands, um, unless it's re-education or a small fine, things like that.

We don't want to get too heavy, but if it really is an egregious case, referring it to a hearing officer that can make it.

Councilman Fled, can you mute?

Councilman.

I didn't know what's happening.

Glad you guys didn't have like other things.

Um, coming from above.

I was like, what's going on?

We're all defending listening.

At this point, you never know.

So and I I do believe I heard the question.

Um it is six written in the bill, it is 18 months here.

This was decided after this was submitted, um, and what is in legislatar.

So and then just um the model of the language really is if there is an egregious case, it can refer to a hearing officer which can levy substantially larger fines or actually pull an ability to lobby for a certain period of time.

But um that would be adjudicated by hearing officer, not by Nick or I, um, to sort of really make sure the enforcement and the regulator have have some some space.

Um, and then I'll sort of pause there.

Um I know that there's been some bill updates since this piece on it and sort of turn it over.

Thank you so much.

Um I think what we were uh debating, there were two different lines of inquiry.

Um the first is about a cooling off period, and the second is about who falls under reporting requirements.

Um, where I um I connected with council members asking kind of where uh they wanted to be on the cooling off period, six months was the overwhelming um kind of space, largely because it already aligned with an established uh excuse me, almost probationary period for ethics uh code.

Um there were there were a few others who who were fine with either with either six months or a year.

I didn't really hear um too many folks asking for more than a year.

Um so we've um uh we'd like to move forward with six months.

Um, and I will say I think there is um uh movement here in the not too distant future, uh, because uh my understanding is that um the ethics code language itself might need some updates.

Um we would like to make sure that we're not different even at that time.

So um while our language doesn't hinge on the six months of the ethics board, it should not be dissimilar if and when the ethics board updates their language and potentially extends that time period.

So we'd just like to to be consistent along the path um in in future iterations.

So that's kind of where we've landed now.

I'm interested in any feedback and questions.

Um gets um, who does reporting take place with, I believe we landed with aids being included in that.

Um correct me if I'm wrong.

So what we are forecasting it sort of looking at is not individual aids, but as the office as a whole.

Um so it would be if it was a direct communication with you, it would be listed as with you, but if it was with an aid, it would be with the office, because we did feel it would be slightly unfair to lobbyists and other folks to know sort of an active running list all the time of who's in what office.

Um, and so it would be still a communication to your office in a lobbying capacity, but to your office, not to, and additionally to some of the boards and commissions that would be sort of under this as well.

Um, so it would be just a lobbying activity if you sent an aid to a meeting or they bumped into them at a public, you know, it's like so really still the communication on behalf of what client would be captured, but um down to the aid as an individual.

Um, we thought it may be a kind of hard to manage with sort of just generally uh knowing who's in aid versus an intern versus you know what role, and I know you all have also had some discussions of like actually creating different ranks in your office in terms of staffing, so we figured this would be the best way to cover it and see what the data looks like, and and then we can really sort of come back if we think it does need to be individual aids or um, you know, so we could come back with some data on that.

Yeah, we figured um nobody really, you know, is um in our ops conversations or HR working group and knows that we're actually thinking about the classifications and titles that we've got for our aides.

Um, and not everyone is an aide, um, and not everyone may be an aide in the future, so we don't want to write something into the ordinance that prescribes something that may change in the future.

So this felt like the cleanest way just to cover um that somebody's been talked to in um uh councilwoman Torres' office.

So I think that's it.

Happy to take your questions.

Great.

I have Councilmember Sawyer first in the queue.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Um I was look trying to look up the language, which is why I was not ready.

I did not know I was going first, sorry.

Uh in terms of the aligning with the ethics code, um, is there a way to write the language so that we don't have to go back and change the ordinance when the ethics code gets updated?

Like, this might be a John question.

Found in a brand.

Right?

Like it just, and I don't, it might already be like that.

I just didn't look it up in time.

Do you probably isn't yet?

Um, and I'm John can uh I spoke with Ben about this, and John can jump in as well.

Is it's a it's on page 15, and it right now it does not have a direct tie-in, and Ben's um strong legal opinion that John can can jump in here as well, is that citing a different section of code in the statute is would not be good drafting.

What he'd rather do is and what our office is more than happy to do is if you folks change this, either you want a companion bill updating this, or if the scope of the bill uh is appropriate for single subject, um, include uh a change in this um at the same time.

So we uh are in agreement with it conceptually.

Um we do not think it should be in this.

That was his opinion coming out of that.

But right now, that language does mirror the six months, there's just not a direct reference to the board of ethics in that in that um phrase.

Okay, I don't do you have an opinion about this.

I kind of disagree with Ben's read.

That's why I'll just throw in.

Yeah, I think everything that was said uh is accurate.

The only thing I would add is usually when we're conforming other things to a further bill, it usually falls within single subject.

So I would hope we don't have an issue moving forward, but yeah, that it should be able to update along with any update to the ethics code.

Okay, and that was John Griffin, deputy legislative council.

Um council member, I'll be oh, I'm not done.

Uh one more.

Um, okay.

And then second question is around the lobbying of the aides.

Like what is the trigger for that?

And the reason I'm asking is because I will tell you, like, my aides in their like annual goals in work day, it is annual goals for them to actually like work to make active connections, both internal to the city and external to the city, um, as part of their professional development.

So, like, that's what work day says about my aides, and I feel like uh then there gets into this weird spot where like I have told them that this is what they should be doing because part of their job, and then now the lobbyist is having to report that, or like what is the threshold or whatever?

Like, I just I think we all just need a little clarity.

Um, and we've sort of wrestled with this too, right?

Like, what is sort of the trigger because the aides don't take an official sort of action, right?

Um it would sort of fall under the same as we sort of see it.

Hi, I need your boss to vote for this, right?

Is that sort of trigger or or hey, can you get involved and help move this project for me with a board or commission, right?

Like, and in your capacity, um, that is how we're sort of envisioning the same trigger, right?

We don't want to stop them from attending community meetings and having that be reported or walk site tour, you know, like all the things that that falls under that.

But really, it's the high, hey, do you know where so and so is gonna vote on this?

I you know, can you find out for me?

Um, you know, are are you guys gonna be a yes or no?

Um, is sort of the triggers of of those similar to you all.

If we don't want to hinder the sort of stakeholdering process and the the briefings you all get in those type of things.

Okay.

Did you have something you want to do?

Well, I mean, I think the intent, so so when you look at this, the aides are a function of you and your office, right?

In their official capacity, and you know, they shouldn't have to report every conversation they have in passing by, but when you are officially being lobbied, when you're officially being lobbied on anything that's that's in front of you, you may not have the time to do it yourself, and your aides are just as good as doing, and I think part of that is mirroring what exists on the federal level as well, too.

If you've ever uh lobbied on the hill, you're meeting with the staffer mostly, most likely.

It is just as important.

And I think part of that is the intent is the to recognize the actual function of the office and the function of those aides in their official capacity as opposed to the passing by.

Okay.

Really appreciate that clarity.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

Okay, thanks.

That's it.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, before we go to Councilmember Vidros, I just wanted to mention that um this was an item that had public comment, but no one signed up.

So I skipped right over that in a council medal questions.

Um yeah.

Anyway, um, Councilman Bell Vidros.

Thank you.

Um, just to clarify, so um lobbyists need to report meeting with an aide, but aides are not required to have a uh cooling off period, or they're they are?

They're not required.

Or required to have a cooling off period, okay.

And so the ultimate decision around the appointees for the mayor as well, are like their appointees do have to have a call cooling off period, but not the legislative lease on this.

Okay.

Just wanted to get signal.

We actually narrowed it to just the mayor's cabinet.

So not every appointee in his office, just the cabinet and elected officials are covered by the cooling off period.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all I had.

Can I actually make sure the little got it cute?

No, you're good.

Um at the moment.

That's what we just was last council president.

Do you want to next and then?

Is the cabinet equal the 14 positions under charter?

Yes.

Okay.

The 14 positions under charter, not safety.

Are not the the there's the three safety positions in there, chief of police chief, fire chief.

It referred to it to charter.

I think we may have.

That's not the three safety.

It's not the three safety heads, and after the most recent vote, it includes the executive director of RCP.

Excision license and HRCP, but not or whatever we call exercise and license now, D.

LCP, L C.

Right.

So it's actually it was um 10 positions, now it is 12 positions, but it does not include, for example, the executive director of host.

Does not include, for example, the executive director of Dito.

Correct.

It does not include, right?

None of those positions, none of those agencies were created in charter.

It does not include the executive director of CASER.

Um none of those agencies were created in charter.

So the those agencies' heads cannot qualify to be deputy mayor.

Those agency heads also are then external to this.

So just so you guys like that's what I wanted to jump in and say it's it's a little more complicated than that because it is it's 12 positions, but it is not all the positions in the city and county of uh all of the executive directors.

It is manager of safety, parks and rec, Dottie, um, HRCP, DC LP, DLCP, DLC P DLCP, um, uh you know, and then like kind of the big ones, but not it is not some of those other ones that were not that were created either in ordinance or by executive order and not in the charter.

Yeah.

Um council president, does that answer?

Do you have more questions?

Okay, and then d did you have other questions or you just wanted to get back in in to say that?

No, I just wanted to say that because I'm actually not convinced that that's the right way to go.

Yeah.

I am I am actually a little bit concerned about that because I do think even though hosts was created in ordinance, the executive director of host should be a part of this, even though Dito was created, I think, by executive order.

So, um Dito should be included in here.

CASAR was created by executive order, CASR should be included in here.

Like, I just it's we don't disagree with you, so let us figure out a way to add that.

Yeah, and I understand the mechanism is difficult to explain why those ones should be included, and very easy to just say the charter agency.

Correct, which is why we went with that for our council approval of mayoral appointees.

But when we're talking about something like non-compete, yeah, especially where we're struggling to recruit leadership for these physicians because they don't get paid very much.

Um the um it it pits agency heads against agency heads when they should all be on the same team.

Yeah, right, because it'd be better to take the so I think the director of Dito job.

We need to figure out like what the right language is to pick those, because it's not like your average policy analyst appointee, it is ahead of a department and agency.

So let us work on that.

Um, and because I don't think we're in disagreement with you.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it's just it's a tough mechanism unless you want to like say charter agencies and then specifically list out head of AVD, head of host.

Which we know changes, right?

Right.

Right.

So I don't I don't know exactly how you do it.

Yeah, and if you can't do it, I understand why, but I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of including some and not too.

Yeah, and and I think at your core, what you're concerned about is the is the intrinsic conflict of interest that could arise because of the position approving contracts being the signature being everything on that.

So I think part of that is just looking at I think there's a way to do that really easily.

I think it's fair.

It's beyond charter.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Um, does anyone else want to get into you?

Because I have questions no one else is in yet, but I'm gonna check for Flynn too.

I have just a real quick question.

Right.

Um, so that also means the airport and the airport is not included.

The airport is the charter agency, charter agency part of this already.

Okay.

Okay, no, okay.

Thank you.

That was it.

Um, so a couple things.

I think I just want to be super clear that I um that I heard this correctly versus seeing the slide.

Can you guys tell me again where the cooling off period is at now?

Six months.

Okay, and the slide still says 18 just from the old direct.

Um I really still think it should be longer.

I know you guys kind of talk to members of the body, but um six months is so short that the same policies are still gonna be like moving through in that time, especially like we'd take a while on things.

Um, the state is two years, federal is a year, as you know, um the federal cooling-off period is widely viewed as way too short.

Um, six months to me feels like it will just be very ineffective.

So I know you asked that question before.

I don't think that I had answered it personally.

Um I don't know, yeah.

If you want to talk a little more about why, but I I understanding the tracking with board of ethics, I don't I still don't know that that's you know, to me, I don't know that that tail should wag this dog, I guess.

Well, you're in the minority, I'll just say that's fine.

Um, in in my conversations with council, though I do understand where you're coming from on it, especially because we're looking at I think even um uh two years at the at the state level, um, uh but I I do want to make sure that we get a package passed, and that I'm hearing where most folks are comfortable and they're most comfortable um being in line with where the ethics line is also at.

Um, and I guess my assumption is that we're gonna be looking at that language uh pretty promptly as well.

I think this is definitely urged us to make sure that all of our language is up to date, especially that one.

Yeah, um, and so I don't anticipate it'll stay at six months.

Okay, terribly long, but um we did want to make sure that we were hearing the body and most folks were at six, okay.

Um let me then ask um Lori to come up to Mike introduce yourself and I have a quick question about that.

I think you have an opinion.

Thank you.

Um, and I just am curious if you could say a little bit more about um or update your undergoing and if you have a sense of where that will land, um, if it's premature, it's okay.

But so with respect to this bill, um, one of the things councilman Flint has asked me a question about this, um, as to where perhaps the cooling off period might reside.

My thought was um for the subsequent employment in 264 of the code of ethics.

Um, it's not really applicable very often for employees leaving the system city, and I think for the average employee, six months might be right.

My suggestion was that employees need to have notice in the code of ethics if they're gonna be held to an 18 or a longer month period um in the code of ethics while they're employees as to what happens when they leave.

So there should be some consistency, and my suggestion was that I always look at the purpose of this, right?

So we don't want people using their relationships and their knowledge of matters they just worked on while they were in the city.

When we're talking about the higher level officials and electeds, that should be maybe a longer period of time.

So my suggestion was 2.64 as a couple, it has an A and a B, adding like a C that kind of speaks to lobbying, and um the need to have a longer period for some certain individuals.

But again, I think it's important that the ethics code give notice if the if the term is gonna be longer, um, so that people don't say, well, here I was told when I joined the city, I'd have a six-month calling up period, but now I'm reading this.

I have 18 months.

Okay.

So the provision that we're talking about that we've been referring to throughout is the provision that applies to all the city employees in the ethics code or most.

Um, okay, and and I guess then my question back to the and I think Laurie, that I don't have any other other people we have questions for you, but I'm good.

So you can sit down if you're thank you so much.

I don't want to make you keep standing there.

My question for the sponsors in the clerk's office then is if the if the current um ethics provision is sort of it's much broader, right?

And um and the concerns about changing that would be noticed to employees, and also maybe that we don't want to change that.

I I'm still a little bit it leaves me with a little bit of question mark about why we would pass an ordinance that is specific to those of us that are higher level, but then turn to the board of ethics to carve out a new provision for those of us that are higher level when we just pass an ordinance about it.

It just I'm just not understanding that.

I don't know that I have an answer around that.

Um I think we are uh uh doing one step at a time, uh, particularly because there's so much more that's being added um uh in authority and responsibility on uh this team to get in place.

We just want to make a like our first entry into real reporting and real accountability when it comes to frankly the reporting side of this um not even so much the the cooling off side.

Um I think we all saw several electeds leave office in 2023.

I didn't get lobbied by them.

Um so like they didn't come to council necessarily um to lobby, even though they had registered as lobbyists um for something else in Denver.

So I I do want to make sure we're solving a problem, and I'm not yet seeing that as a problem that needs that much of a step.

I think we can get there, and I don't have a problem getting there at some point.

Okay.

And um, does the existing cooling off period that's in the ethics code already apply to all appointees?

It would because they're sitting in place.

It does, yes, okay.

So the so what's new here is applying it to electeds.

Yes, okay.

Um, and having it in this section of the code.

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

My other question um goes back to the topic of like who's covered.

Um, so first talking about as Councilmember Sawyer, recognize the um the fact that there's lots of who we think of as agency heads that aren't charter level.

I very strongly agree with that if we can figure out how to define it.

Um, and then why not include folks in the mayor's office?

Because they seem very likely to potentially go out and lobby.

Like, are you talking about like say that again?

Um so people who are not charter-level like agency heads, but are like the mayor's chief of staff, the mayor's legislative director, the, I mean, those seem like positions we would really care about because those are quite powerful and close to the nursery of the city.

It would still be applied to that rule.

Oh, I know.

I'm talking about the lobbying though.

Oh, those are all appointed positions.

I think we we're we're I think we're sort of open to that.

We were trying to figure out what the sort of right lines to sort of figure that out is.

I think we could look at expanding that.

Um, the biggest problem we've sort of run into is is not every administration sort of looks the same and has the same title and and sort of roles and responsibilities.

Um so would love sort of input on if we want to expand it into those roles.

Um I do hear you that I think they're involved in a lot of different things.

I'm just not exactly sure how we capture it in the ordinance.

Um, because we're talking about like Adam Paul, Jeff Dolan.

Or no, I mean, yeah.

I think I mean I think in councilman Sawyer, you were I think getting at this, is we're looking at those that are appointed by the mayor.

So they're people that you're talking about are appointed to the mayor.

Like our by the mayor, sorry.

Council aides are appointees, right?

The mayor's those those positions within the mayor's staff, those are appointees, they're not career service.

So maybe that's the connection distinction.

I'm sorry.

I'm trying to ask, am I correct that in the current bill they aren't covered?

Okay, why not?

Because as we said earlier, that was a that was something we didn't maybe think about at the until councilman Sawyer maybe from the distinction.

I mean, they're appointed by the mayor.

I think there's a difference between in this particular city government, people that are appointed by the mayor as opposed to appointed by the other 12 electeds.

I mean, I don't think we disagree.

It oversees all the agencies, right?

Right.

I think we disagree with with the desire to look at that and how we can incorporate it.

I think is what we've said.

And what I will say where we were leaning was like directors of divisions, right?

They're making kind of um in the moment like final decisions when it comes to contracts or um hiring or whatever it might be.

I think we get into overly broad territory and saying all appointees that the mayor appoints.

What is that?

2, 54 or something like that.

And it's everyone from like the policy analyst to the boards and commissions director to an outreach person, right?

That we're saying, okay, everyone now has a bright line around rolling into lobbying.

Like people lobby for really great things too.

Like we're not just, I think, policing lobbying, I think we're policing who has influence that they're gathering in their job.

Right.

And it's hard, harder, I think, to distinguish who is Johnston appointed to key roles.

We didn't have a COO under the prior mayor.

So we would have had to have named that or included all appointees, if we're gonna name a particular position.

Just as a kind of thought though, and I see uh Mr.

Cook that you also want to answer the question, but um, isn't it given that we define lobbying itself fairly narrowly where it's asking for a specific policy action?

Um, typically people are not gonna ask the outreach person to tell the mayor to take a certain policy action, or maybe maybe they are, but I mean, I think that problem maybe is sort of solved by the narrowness of the definition of what is lobbying, right?

Because most of the there are absolutely people that take those meetings on behalf of the mayor.

I would venture to guess that most meetings in which the mayor is being asked to do something, the mayor is not taking.

So I think this is like, and maybe the concept is similar to us and our offices, um, where it's like if you're lobbying the mayor through someone that he's appointed, then it's reportable.

You know, like if what you're asking for is an action by the mayor, um because agency heads have their own discretion, so they're kind of being lobbied like in their own capacity, whereas the mayor, I would imagine, is usually lobbied like through others, and I just think if we miss that, then essentially we're never gonna capture lobbying of the mayor.

I hear that, and I also want to want the language to be as clear as possible, um, for those who have to report that they're not asking themselves is this the right person or is that the right person, or what am I reporting in this particular two-month period of time?

Um, otherwise we end up with no report no activity, right?

Because they can't decipher, am I reporting on that person or not?

I don't know.

Right, but even if the mayor has, say we say people that like don't work with an agency, and we've had issues with we've had to fix this in the budget process, right?

Um, and we did fix that.

Like they now delineate if someone does a majority of their work for an agency, they're under an agency, otherwise they're within the mayor's office for budget purposes.

So if we define the mayor's office the same way as we do for the budget, and lobbying itself is also narrowly defined, that is not that many people, and anybody out there in the world knows when they're contacting the mayor's office to lobby.

I mean, then it's what 30 people or something like that that actually work outside agencies in the mayor's office.

As somebody who's worked in an agency, an agency of the mayor's office, I would have interpreted that differently.

I worked for the agency for human rights, not for the mayor's office.

So if you're in children's affairs, not in the mayor's office, right?

We're talking about two different things though, Jamie.

I I understand.

So we also have this issue that the mayor creates like these sub-agencies that we also have been trying to define like who are the heads of those.

I'm just talking about the people that um directly the report up to him that are under no uh that are not given any kind of title of an office, nothing like that, that are just the people directly around the mayor.

Almost all the lobbying that he gets comes through those people, and again, we all know who they are.

If if they're not covered by this ordinance, it's do you want to do that?

It's a huge problem, I think.

Um council member, um the sorry, your original question about are they covered by the cooling off period?

No, they are covered with covered officials for the purpose of disclosing meetings.

We tried to split the note on that.

I think we have been quite confused.

I have been trying to talk about the lobbying provision of the cooling off period.

Okay.

About who can lobby the mayor, who has to report lobbying.

Okay, I'm picking up again.

Yeah, I wasn't.

So I don't have to.

Can I ask the sponsors again then and the clerk's office for purposes of lobbying reporting?

If someone lobbies um someone with a title in the mayor's office again, you know, direct resources.

As default.

Council.

Does that have to be reported on that?

As defined in the current draft that's before folks, covered official includes any members of the mayor cabin mayor's cabinet, and any eventual individual, sorry, excuse me, individual appointed by an elected official to serve in a policy making or advisory position, which we would define to include the mayor's um okay uh higher staff.

Okay, and then second question back to the cooling off period.

Couldn't we use that same definition then?

Uh we could.

Okay.

Can I just jump in and add one thing?

I will say, um, there is a difference in like job classifications in HR between our staff members and mayoral staff members and a city staff member, right?

So like Councilmember Torres worked for HRCP.

She was career service.

That is very different and has different rules than our aides, and the people who work in the mayor's office who are at will employees and appointees.

That's what our staff members are.

This is an eight, these are HR actual HR classifications.

So I think that um it's possible to define like to get to because I agree with council member parody 100%.

Um and so I think it's possible to get to where she's trying to go in a reasonable way, thinking about it in terms of like the actual job classifications, because there aren't very many at will employees in the city and county of Denver, um, and the ones that there are appointees of elected officials.

So I think like maybe that's the the difference if you are like that would be a very clear.

We're still talking about cooling off period.

I think we're talking about both.

I'm talking about both, okay, um, because I think that that's a clear definition.

Like if your career service, it's that's a different space um than if you are an appointee if you are at will.

Well, and our aides are not technically appointees.

But they are at will.

Yes.

And so I think that's the classification piece, right?

Okay.

I think it's we have to ask John.

I'm gonna have phone a friend.

But I think it's defined in the so our in charter, our point our appointees are called appointees, then in the code, we find them part of the career service rules and part not, right?

And I think that was like to create parity amongst all of them.

All of us are paying one council eight, like a hundred and fifty thousand dollars, right?

So that we could create that classification.

I just don't know on the back end how that works with HR.

So, but I understand what everyone's saying, and I do understand that, like thinking about Tim Hoffman and for not naming names like that.

Well, I just saw a press release about he's the new director of legislation um legislative affairs.

So for calling Tim Tim, I'm calling you out.

Uh formally Angela, formally Skye.

How do you do that?

They all had different titles.

Sky didn't have that title.

Yeah, Skye did not ever have that title.

Sky had a different title, and then her title changed depending on what happened.

So since I've been here for 14 years, I've seen different titles in the mayor's office.

And it's because their appointees, they can create those titles.

Yeah.

I think but I get what you're saying.

It's hard for me to believe that this is like an unsolvable drafting problem.

I think I think I think we can, yeah.

I think we're open to figuring out how to noodle this.

We just need to go back and get that figured out.

I'll take on talking to HR on that.

I do want to sort of just make sure I'm doing like the press secretary is appointed.

Are you wanting that person to be included, or is it just the high level sort of folks, right?

Just so I can, as I'm having sort of that conversation, um with HR is it press secretary is the mayor of Denver, like the secretary press secretary for the mayor of Denver.

Right, yeah, I just I just want to make sure that I'm asking the right the right question.

Yeah, and to like I don't know why my particular opinion is that anyone who is doing what is defined as lobbying, if they're talking to anybody that was appointed by the mayor out outside an agency or an office, it should be reportable, even if it is, you know, the person sitting at the front.

And it is right now.

I feel like the language says that it is.

I think the piece that we're doing, participating is is the cooling off period.

Right.

And and for then for I mean, it's it also seems like a cooling off period could fairly easily flow from like having had a substantial amount of lobbying reports made about them.

Like basically just looking back to if we were in fact lobbied to a substantial degree or something like that.

Then we have to have a cooling off period.

That's a little more I think that's challenging.

Yeah, uh Clerk.

If I might add, you know, I you know, these are one of those things that especially with the absence of you don't you don't want to allow um perfection to be to be the enemy of progress, right?

This is a very first step.

It's a very basic framework, a very important one, and I think part of it is just getting to the the notion of conflict of interest and making sure there's transparency amongst obvious conflict of interest and what could be a conflict of interest or disproportionate treatment from you know, if a director is in charge of asphalt, right?

And then goes and you know, within a few months, resigns and says, you know, I can make more money in the asphalt business, um, and then starts lobbying and gets the contract.

That's that that is an obvious conflict of interest um in terms of the process, right?

If I were to say, hey, you know what, I'm gonna go work for Dominion.

Oh no, and it's not Dominion anymore, it's Liberty Office.

I'm done, I'm gonna go make some money.

They went there, just want a huge settlement if you haven't read the news.

The conflict of interest.

I think part of it is just making sure that there are guardrails that are basic in place that people can understand without getting too technical in the terms.

I agree with your spirit, um, councilwoman.

I think you know, really doing a deep dive into this.

I think the sponsors are are there as well, too.

I don't see any difference in opinion around the table of, you know, what can be what should be transparent and what should not be.

Or the question of who can get a contract and when they get a contract in the timeline in which they were serving the public and then after.

Um two separate things.

The other thing I have to say is that I relied heavily on my aides.

I relied heavily on lobbyists because one of the things is that we don't have I didn't have the bandwidth to be able to understand how you know jets are fueled and what kind of fuel they take.

I was too busy.

I mean, there was so many different things.

So you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of who's at the table and who can come to come to speak to their council person, right?

Whether they are living in their district or not, so here's what I propose, um, because I I think the only um thing that we're hearing just a difference of opinion around is just the cooling off period, who it applies to.

Um, so um you follow up with HR.

I'm happy to circle back around with folks, especially those of you who have been listening to this conversation, um, but I'll just reiterate.

Um I think I had hang on a sec.

I had um six council members off for six months, three okay with either six or twelve.

So that leaves another uh four that had not gotten back to me with an opinion about cooling off.

So I just want to make sure folks know where our body sits because that's I I'll need seven votes to get this across the line, particularly if we know we can take other stabs at this if we feel like it's not working, right?

Or it's not being applied correctly.

So uh I'll circle back around.

Yeah, as well.

I think the other the other issue on the cooling off is also around those that are appointed by the mayor, right?

So that's the piece that we just need to be able to get some more information and details around if how if and how that can be incorporated.

I don't think we're in disagreements that that shouldn't that that is necessary, or I mean I mean, we use two negatives here.

Um, but you know what I'm saying, like we're not in disagreement with you with Councilwoman Sawyer, Councilwoman Parody, that we should figure out how to capture some of those folks.

We just need to see if that's possible and what that looks like.

So I don't I mean, we just don't have the language right now.

Is I get what we're doing.

Well, and one more thing to be clear about is just circling back, like um right now you're adding this in ordinance um for those employees, but they're already subject to it under city ethics rules.

So different definition.

It's a different definition, okay.

That's really good to know.

Um that's helpful because I was gonna say it's kind of somewhat academic, um, but maybe it's not if the definition is we're saying you can't register as a lobbyist in Denver, right?

Point blank.

Ethics is saying you cannot lobby on something you were working on when you were a city employee for six months.

Okay, gotcha.

All right, um, does anyone else have questions before we do a motion and second?

Great.

So my council president, second of my councilmember, Campbell, thumbs up spy committee members, councilman, does you good?

All right, thank you guys so much.

We'll see you.

We'll be in touch.