For this biweekly meeting of the Finance and Business Committee of Denver City Council.

Join us for the Finance and Business Committee starting now.

Right.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to Finance and Business Committee.

Today is Tuesday, June 23rd.

My name is Sedana Gonzalez Putiades, and I am one of your council members at large and chair of this committee.

We will start with introductions from council members that are joining us here today before we get into what's on today's agenda.

With that said, I will be going to council members that are joining us virtually.

We'll start with their introductions.

Good morning, Stacey Gilmore, District 11.

And Councilwoman Sawyer might not be on yet.

Alright, so we'll go to the room and I will start over here to my right.

Good morning.

Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4.

Good morning, Paul Cashman, South Denver District 6.

Good morning, Darrell Watson, fine, district nine.

Good morning, Madisonville, Northwest Denver District 1.

All right.

So we have a couple of items on the agenda today that will require action.

We have first starting us off with the licensing and consumer protections department, and they are here to present on their licensing code updates.

Just so everyone knows we will hear the presentation.

Because this item requires that we will have 15 minutes of public comment, and we'll give, I will give more instructions on how that will how that process will go when we get to it.

So with that said, we'll go ahead and turn it over to our folks here at the end of the table.

If you can introduce yourselves and then proceed with your presentation.

Hi everybody, Molly Duple Shane, Executive Director of Licensing and Consumer Protection.

Hi everyone, Abby Soyson.

I'm a senior policy analyst with licensing and consumer protection.

All right.

So yeah, we are here today to present an updated regulatory framework for entertainment licenses and how we regulate entertainment businesses here in Denver.

So first, just to kind of set the stage, pun intended, um, Denver's entertainment scene is really well known and is growing.

Um largest concert market in the United States.

Uh, we had the second most per capita entertainment spending among U.S.

cities, and in 2025, we had 37.6 uh million visitors and 10.5 billion dollars in visitor spending for live entertainment.

Um, so our entertainment and nightlife venues are an asset that we really want to protect.

Um, we have really have a spectrum of venues here in Denver, and we've worked really closely with a lot of them over the last year or so.

Um, we have small venues, larger venues, really everything in between.

Um, and we just really recognize that they play an important um and distinct role in Denver's music, entertainment, and cultural ink ecosystem.

Um, they support artists, they provide jobs, they activate neighborhoods and cultural districts, um they contribute to our Denver or to our character and appeal.

Um, and I think one of the key pieces is that this is all, you know, it wasn't by accident, this was all designed and curated and thoughtful and intentional, and so that was really the approach that we wanted to take with these regulations was um we wanted to design and curate some thoughtful and intentional regulations that allow us to properly regulate these types of businesses and offer fun in a safe way, and that allows us to protect and retain these valuable assets.

Um, why are we proposing this change?

Um these are some changes that we see as long overdue.

Um, these uh regulations haven't had a comprehensive update um in many decades.

Um, and in some areas, um, these types of businesses are overregulated, and then in some areas they are very underregulated.

Um, and so the current framework really just wasn't um something that we saw was working for really any of the stakeholders.

Um, so when looking at businesses, um it's an overly complicated system with 14 different license types that really didn't have distinction between them.

Um, and then as well as the neighbors who you know provide input to these types of businesses.

Um, one thing we saw was they had to rely on good neighbor agreements um to get the businesses to address some gaps in our regulations.

Um, and then from a safety perspective, we didn't have the tools that we needed to address um, you know, bad actors when those issues did occur.

Um, and so um that was really looking at all of those um from the lens of our different stakeholders.

Really wanted to take a comprehensive um view and do an overall update.

And then we do have this reference to a 1929 study around dance halls, which is a license that still exists in our code that we will now be repealing with this proposal.

And this is a license that actually predated this 1929 study.

So I think that just speaks to how really outdated some of these regulations are.

Within the last year or plus, some of us have attended and gone on site visits and experienced what we see as far as the let out crowd in Lodo around 2 a.m.

And really that was just something that drove home the need to really develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent and mitigate some safety issues that we see in this spaces.

And this license is just one of those pieces of the strategy, but it's one that we wanted to start with that we think is pretty important.

So to address some of the safety issues, something else that we really looked at is how safety can contribute to creating that thriving nightlife scene and nightlife economy.

And so, you know, we really came at this with the approach that safety measures are in the best interest of all that are involved, not just the patrons, but the businesses as well, the surrounding neighborhood and the community of those businesses.

We know that a lot of these businesses are already using some of these best practices around safety.

So what this ordinance does is it brings all of those entertainment businesses up to basically a minimum level of safety requirements in order for those businesses to be able to operate, and then it gives us just more of a preventative approach rather than the reactive stance that we have right now.

So just to summarize before Abby gets into some of the more details of the proposal, um just to summarize some of our objectives, we really have these complementary goals around increasing safety while also decreasing regulations, and that we really want to use those two objectives to continue to create a nightlife and entertainment scene that is all safe, vibrant, but still thriving as well.

Alright, so I'm gonna go in over some of the basics of one of those objectives, which is how are we reducing over regulation of entertainment in Denver.

There's three key improvements that I want to highlight that are in the ordinance.

The first and the biggest is that we'd like to streamline the license categories and types to make it much simpler for businesses to understand what license they actually need to offer the entertainment that they want to offer.

Complementary to that, we'd like to simplify our license fees for these licenses.

And then, you know, the third is that we'd like to shift to a discretionary hearing model that's really meant to balance the need for neighborhood input on these types of licenses with the need for government efficiency and fiscal responsibility.

So this is what our current licensing framework is today.

For those who aren't familiar, the Denver revised municipal code lays out four different license categories with 14 different license types.

We have the cabaret licenses, which are issued to businesses that also have a liquor license and want to offer some type of entertainment.

We have seven types of cabaret licenses.

We also have amusement licenses, dance halls and social rooms.

All of these have they allow for fairly similar activities in terms of entertainment and they have fairly similar requirements.

And so we have all these different license types that aren't really distinguished from each other that significantly.

And so that's part of what we are trying to change and what we're trying to simplify.

So for some context, we have 445 cabaret licenses active currently.

We have 55 permanent amusement licenses, just one social room license, and no dance hall licenses from the 1920s.

So let's take a look at what we are proposing to replace this with.

As we worked through the types of 14 differtainment that we currently license types, we realized that we were really overregulating fun generally and entertainment generally, and so we wanted to really narrow in on the places where the community impact is the greatest.

And so we heard from neighbors that the existing license framework wasn't working to address their concerns about noise and about patron behavior in and around these establishments.

We heard from our safety partners that this license isn't really work, these licenses aren't really working to prevent certain safety issues, and we heard from businesses themselves that the existing framework is confusing.

So as a result, we're proposing to shift our focus in the code from entertainment broadly to just live entertainment and adult entertainment.

The definitions in the bill really cover the core activities that the new framework will cover.

So live entertainment includes live music, live performances, including performances by a DJ, or a dance floor.

Live entertainment does not include some specific things that are listed in the bill.

It doesn't include adult entertainment, which has its own definition.

Adult entertainment includes performances by adult entertainers.

Live entertainment doesn't include ambient or background music, sports on TVs or radios, recreational activities, so things like lawn games, darts, billiards, and then MC'd audience games like trivia or bingo.

So we have three types of licenses that we're proposing.

First is the limited entertainment license.

This is for a business that offers live entertainment and does so before or up until midnight, and then can offer entertainment up until 2 a.m.

up to 12 times per year.

So on an intermittent basis, they can go past midnight to 2 a.m.

so long as they provide notice to the neighborhood and provide notice to us 72 hours in advance that they're planning to do that.

And that's really meant to address special occasions, holiday weekends, things like that.

But generally, these businesses are offering entertainment before midnight.

The nightlife entertainment business is for businesses that offer live entertainment past midnight on a more regular basis.

And those businesses can offer live entertainment up until 4 a.m.

They don't have to offer entertainment until 4 a.m., but they do have that option with this license because it is subject to enhanced safety requirements as well.

And then finally, the adult entertainment license is for any business offering adult entertainment.

They can offer adult entertainment until 4 a.m.

as well, and are subject to enhanced safety requirements.

So what does that mean for all the businesses that are offering other types of entertainment aside from live entertainment?

Under our proposed framework, we expect that many businesses that currently need an amusement or a cabaret license to offer certain types of low-impact entertainment will no longer need an entertainment license at all.

So that they will still need their liquor license, their food license, whatever other activities they're doing, but they wouldn't need a specific license to offer entertainment.

So that would include things like trivia at a brewery, restaurants that have ambient background music, bowling alleys, movie theaters, and then events that go through a permitting process through the city already, would not have to go through another duplicative permitting process with us.

And it reduces some of the confusion and some of the red tape for our businesses that just want to offer a place for Denverites to have fun and bring in more patrons to their business.

So the second improvement to reduce overregulation is to simplify our fee structure.

Currently, our fees for cabarets and amusements are in four different code sections and include application and license fees, as you can see in this complex chart.

These are all the fees that are in place in the current framework.

I won't read through all of them because that would take a while, and also because this is what we're proposing instead.

So pretty significantly simplified.

Instead of four different code sections with 30 different line items, we'll just have application and license fees for each of the categories, as well as the cost of the underage patrons endorsement, which Molly will talk about shortly.

And then we've included standard license transaction fees like transfers of ownership and modifications of premises, also in the bill.

And just as a note, the fees in this table do align with a recent fee study and are meant to just cover the cost of administering the license.

The $500 fee for the limited entertainment business is actually less than the current $750 fee for standard and acoustic cabaret licenses.

The $1,500 license fee for nightlife businesses aligns with the current $1,500 fee for dance, dance, special dance and event center cabaret licenses, so sort of the more comparable license type.

And then that $1,500 license fee for adult entertainment is less than the $3,000 current fee for adult cabaret licenses.

That aligns with our fee study.

It also aligns adult with nightlife because they will have a similar load for the city in terms of administering those licenses.

Okay.

For our third improvement to reduce overregulation, we are hoping to reduce the cost and the burden associated with applying for these types of licenses by removing the provision that requires the department to hold a mandatory hearing on every new cabaret, social room and dance hall license that we offer, and then carrying that forward into the new entertainment licensing framework.

So instead, moving to a discretionary hearing process rather than mandatory.

So for some context and some background, our current application process requires that mandatory hearing on every new application for cabarets, social rooms and dance halls to the extent that they rarely come up.

More than 95% of those licensing hearings every year are unopposed.

So that means that the applicant shows up, they often hire, they often have to hire legal counsel.

The city hires a hearing officer, city attorneys appear, but no residents show up to participate.

In 2025, we held 32 needs and desires hearings for cabaret applications.

Every single one was uncontested.

In 2026, so far, we've held 19 hearings on cabaret applications, and only one has been opposed.

In addition, typically applicants have to be represented by an attorney.

There are a few exceptions for things like sole proprietors, but typically they do have to hire an attorney for this process.

That costs the applicant anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 on average.

Since 2023, we've awarded almost $200,000 in mini grants to reimburse folks for legal costs related to hearings.

And then prior to moving to discretionary hearings for liquor and marijuana licenses, the city was spending around $100,000 annually to hold unopposed application hearings.

And that's in addition to the money that we were awarding with through many grants.

Community members in the current process only have 30 days between receiving the hearing notice and the date of the hearing to determine whether they want to participate, figure out if they can achieve a GNA, a good neighbor agreement with businesses, and prepare for the hearing.

And then even if the community is engaged and even if they support the application, we cannot vacate, or meaning we cannot cancel a mandatory hearing.

We have to hold it even if nobody is opposed, even if the community supports it.

So those are kind of the current issues with the mandatory hearing process today.

All of that is why we're proposing to move to a discretionary model for entertainment license hearings, as well as for cabarets, social rooms, and dance halls in the current framework.

Excuse me.

Under the discretionary hearing model, the director Molly is required to grant a hearing upon receipt of relevant and substantial requests for a hearing.

That means that the request is related to a reason that we could deny the license.

And then something else that you'll see in the you know next and final version of the bill will be an amendment to also require the director to grant a hearing in circumstances that are determined by department rule where a hearing would be required.

And so we would engage in a rulemaking process with stakeholders to determine what circumstances should require a mandatory hearing.

We would consider whether that should be based on the density of types of businesses in that area or you know, potentially the size of those businesses.

So providing a little bit of flexibility for us to establish circumstances where a hearing should be mandatory.

Generally, discretionary hearings allow us to be more flexible.

So if a party that requests a hearing in this process comes to an agreement with the business, they enter into a good neighbor agreement, and then the requesting party decides they actually want to support the business and not go to a hearing, we can cancel the hearing.

So they can withdraw their request for the hearing and we can just process the application administratively.

Overall, we think that the discretionary hearing provisions in the bill strike the right balance between the need to consider the impacts of businesses on neighborhoods with our need to responsibly steward public resources and not unnecessarily spend city time and resources on hearings that are unattended and unopposed.

With that said, we have tried to take steps to improve community access to the hearing process.

One part of this that you'll see in the bill is that applicants will be required to provide evidence of community support with their application.

That could include petitions, it could include a good neighbor agreement, it could include a letter of support.

There's lots of ways to demonstrate that, but uh one amendment that you'll see in the final version of the bill is that that support has to specifically come from residents of the neighborhood.

So it can't be just from a neighboring business, it would actually have to be from somebody who lives in the designated area around the business.

We've also extended the time frame from 20 days to 30 days between when a registered neighborhood organization would receive notice of the application to provide or to request a hearing from us.

So currently for Liquor and Marijuana, it's 20 days.

We've heard from ROs that they often only meet once a month, and so it makes sense to extend that to 30 days instead.

We've published a public dashboard for all applications that are within that hearing request period, so anybody can go and see what applications are within the request period and make that request.

We also have a dashboard for hearings that have been scheduled in case people want to participate, and then we recently worked with technology services to create a system where any resident can sign up to be notified of an application or hearing, even if they don't belong to an RNO, because we know that not all residents are represented by an RNO.

We have a form to help folks request a hearing.

It just has, I think, four questions to really guide them in requesting the hearing and make sure that they provide the information that we need.

And then we've issued guidance to RNOs on how to craft a GNA, a good neighbor agreement with businesses.

I mentioned the business license hearing fund where we were awarding mini grants to community members and businesses related to hearing costs.

And then coming soon, we're planning to publish a public dashboard of good neighbor agreements so that anybody can go and find a good neighbor agreement that a business might have with an RNO and provide some inspiration and information about those.

So with all that in mind, I'll pass it to Molly to talk about our safety objective.

Okay.

So our second main objective, as I mentioned at the beginning, is improving safety, some of the safety requirements and safety measures that these businesses have to maintain.

And so the first one is meant to really create this concept of safety as a community responsibility.

And so there's a lot that the city, including law enforcement and our licensing regulations can do to prevent and react to some of these issues that we see during nighttime and after after dark.

But we're and we're continuously trying to improve and adjust those.

But we also really want to make sure that it is really a shared responsibility.

We think there's a lot that businesses can do to play an important role.

And so the bus the proposed the regulations that we're proposing will require businesses to make reasonable efforts around minimizing disorderly and unlawful contact on the premise of their business, to cause for the orderly admission and dispersal of patrons, so entering and exiting the business, making sure that that is orderly, and then also preventing disorderly congregation within 25 feet of the entrances and exits to the businesses as well.

So we think there's just more that we can be doing to prevent through these measures, violent incidents is associated with disorderly crowding and address some of the neighborhood concerns that we've seen with these businesses around the late-night activity.

Currently, these businesses don't have really any minimum requirements around safety and security.

A lot of them, like I said, have these standards and best practices in place.

But this will set some standards and guardrails and provide guidance to the those businesses.

And so we will require that the nightlife and adult entertainment businesses comply with some heightened social security requirements.

And we'll be making some we'll go into a rulemaking process in coordination with our stakeholders and our experts in this area from law enforcement and the businesses to make some rules around security plans, video surveillance, and then books and records.

So some of those details will go into rulemaking, but we'll have an opportunity to have those conversations with our stakeholders.

And then we also put in a provision that businesses or that weapons would be prohibited at these businesses for nightlife and adult entertainment businesses.

And then another revision that you'll see in the final filing of the bill is that we'll exempt licensed security guards with armed endorsements and law enforcement from that weapons prohibition.

Another provision that we think is really important is that the oversight and management and operations of these are really just very important for some safety features.

And so nightlife and adult entertainment businesses will be required to have one manager who must go through a background check with the licensing and consumer protection department.

And then that all one of these managers and owners would just have to be available for response.

And so this would really provide one clear point of contact for law enforcement when an incident does occur, which is kind of a gap that we've seen when there is an incident that occurs.

And then another thing is that it would be unlawful for somebody to act as a manager without that approval, and then it would be unlawful for third-party promoters to assume operational control of the business.

So this is again something that we've seen and heard, particularly from our law enforcement partners, and so a gap that we want to close to be able to limit in who actually can come in and take over operational control of the business, because that's where we see when something does start to get when incidents and issues start to occur, that's when we see is that it's not tied to a particular manager or owner of the business.

And then finally, a change that we are proposing is that nightlife and adult entertainment businesses would be able to offer entertainment until 4 a.m.

Alcohol service and consumption, that is a you know, limitation in state law, and so that that would still have to end at 2 a.m.

But this would allow businesses to offer entertainment till 4 a.m.

if they choose, it's not required.

Um, but they if they would be able to do that if that is something that fit their business model.

Um and we think this has a couple of different benefits.

First, um, you know, where there is a high density of these types of businesses, we often often see congestion that leads to issues.

Um, and so if this would kind of disperse the flow out of businesses, um we think that will help reduce some violent incidences that we see within those high density entertainment areas.

Um, and then we also there we have heard from some of our businesses that there is a demand and an audience for entertainment past 2 a.m.

And so, you know, if we can meet that demand and then reduce some of the congestion during that 2 a.m.

time, we think there are some some good benefits there.

And then finally, the proposal mostly maintains the regulations that we currently have in place to allow for underage patrons to attend these businesses.

It's an important audience, so we don't want to exclude you know those ages 16 to 20 from patronizing, but we do want to make sure that we have the proper regulations and oversight in place if these businesses are serving products, you know, that are only available to 21 and over.

Um, and so um uh these businesses will still be able to allow for those underage patrons.

Um, but if they are adult and um uh nightlife entertainment, then they would just have to obtain the nightlife, I'm sorry, the underage patron endorsed uh endorsement, and then the limited entertainment businesses, if they allow individuals that are under 21 to stay but are accompanied by a parent or guardian, they wouldn't need the endorsement.

But if they don't have that requirement, then they would just have to come and get the endorsement.

I think back to Abby.

So I just want to provide a few of the finer details on how this would be implemented, and answer some of our most frequently asked questions about you know, how does these changes work for new applicants?

How will it work for existing licensees?

Um, and for those who are just interested in the hearing process.

One of our most frequently asked questions so far has been how do I know if I need an entertainment license and what type am I going to need?

Um we hope that the changes have made this as simple as possible, but um this is sort of a handy flow chart we've made to help businesses kind of make that determination.

Basically, the main question is what kind of entertainment is your business offering?

If you're offering adult entertainment, or if you're offering both adult and live entertainment, you would just need that adult entertainment license.

If the business is offering live entertainment, but they are an exempted facility, they would not need an entertainment license.

So the exempted facilities that you'll see in the bill include amusement and water parks, so like six flags wouldn't need a license to offer entertainment, nonprofit cultural institutions like art museum, um, athletic facilities like course field, uh, movie theaters, and then facilities owned or operated by the city, Denver Public Schools or a state credited state accredited college or university.

If the business is offering live entertainment and they are not an exempted facility, um the question is really, are you offering live entertainment after midnight more than 12 times per year?

If the answer to that is yes, you need a nightlife entertainment license.

If the answer is no, just a limited entertainment license is required.

And then businesses that are offering some other kind of entertainment that's not covered under the definition of live or adult entertainment are not required to get an entertainment license.

Another question we've gotten is how will existing cabaret and amusement licensees transition to this new licensing framework.

Some folks were worried about a lapse in their licensure where they might have to stop offering entertainment for some period of time.

That should not be the case.

Current licensees can continue to operate under their existing license through its expiration date.

The bill will take effect April 1st of next year.

Even if their license expires November of next year, they can continue to operate under that license through its expiration date, and then they can apply for the applicable entertainment license that they, you know, determine that their business needs prior to the expiration of their current license.

And so long as they've submitted that application to us, even if their current license expires, they can continue operating as long as that application is on file with us until we process it, and then they get their new type of entertainment license.

So it should be very uncommon that there would be any lapse in licensure.

It would really just be if somebody completely let their license expire.

Current cabaret licensees would have already had to go through a mandatory needs and desires hearing to get their license.

And so our plan is to accept a past public hearing as evidence of community support for the purpose of accepting their application and processing it because they would have already established that at a hearing to get their cabaret license.

For the discretionary hearing process, there will still be notice of the application posted at the premises and then sent to RO's, city council offices, and anybody who's subscribed to receive those notifications.

Our plan is to bypass the hearing process for current licensees in good standing.

However, there's still an opportunity for folks to request a hearing.

So if we receive relevant and substantial requests for a hearing, we would still consider holding that hearing on the new license.

We anticipate that being a pretty rare circumstance.

And then some licenses, mostly cabaret licenses have conditions on them.

That can result from a settlement agreement resulting from disciplinary action.

It can result from a good neighbor agreement.

So any of those conditions that are currently on the license that are legal and enforceable will be transferred to the new entertainment license automatically.

So our goal with this process is to treat applications from existing licensees as much like a renewal as possible.

It should feel pretty seamless.

And then just wanted to touch quickly on all the other sort of miscellaneous changes that you'll see in the bill draft.

You'll see that there are some provisions that are stricken related to ticketing and ticket resales.

Those are in Chapter 7 and are generally outdated.

We now have consumer protection laws at the state and federal level that address ticket sales and ticket resales that we can enforce under, and so we don't need specific local provisions related to that.

You'll see that there is a new section for shooting ranges.

Shooting ranges are currently required to obtain an amusement license under Chapter 7.

We're not proposing any change to that requirement, but they don't really fit neatly into the live entertainment framework that we've set out here.

And so we've put them into their own chapter.

And so they're they're written or not in their own chapter, I'm sorry, into their own article of chapter seven.

You'll see some tax provisions that have been updated that previously referenced cabarets, now they'll just reference the new entertainment license.

We're not proposing any change to taxes for these types of businesses.

And then finally, you'll see that references to the notifications that we are required to send to registered neighborhood organizations have just been updated to reflect the new name of the license.

We're not proposing any change to what those notifications entail.

Okay, back to Molly.

Alright, I will close us out here.

So just wanted to touch on a lot of the outreach that we've been doing.

This is something that we started doing outreach and research on, going back to even earlier than what's on the slide, which was November of 2025.

But even in May of 2025, there was a group of us from the city within licensing, law enforcement, special events that went to a conference that really talked about life economy, and so that's when we started really looking at some of these concepts and getting some of these ideas of some changes that we wanted to make.

And then since April of this year, we have put out three different drafts and had multiple stakeholder sessions.

We had a survey, we had an online feedback form, and we've had just many briefings and conversations.

I do want to just, you know, shout out a lot of the partners and the stakeholders that have given us a lot of feedback.

I think our drafts have changed substantially from the first to the second and to the third, to the benefit of you know all of the feedback feedback that we have received.

I think that has allowed us to strike the right balance.

We have learned a lot from what from listening to these stakeholders and really tried to incorporate their feedback to strike that right balance.

So for our timeline, we're here today.

As Abby and I have both mentioned, we do have a couple of small amendments that we would be incorporating into the final draft before filing.

Happy to you know get those to you as soon as possible.

And then you know moving forward if we would then move into rulemaking later this summer early fall we would go through a couple months of rulemaking for some of the things that we've mentioned and then we would take a couple of months of implementation operationalizing all of this and then we do have an effective date of April 1st 2027 in the current bill.

And then just a plug for some of our ways to stay engaged we have a bulletin for um you know our current cabaret and amusement licenses or anybody who wants to just remain um you know getting updates on this process um there is a bulletin that people can sign up for all of our previous drafts um and all of this information is on our website.

We have our notification system that Abby mentioned that is now up and running for people to get um notified when there are applications within their neighborhood um and then uh just want to make sure you know that we are uh make sure that we're uh supporting and retaining and attracting these venues and making sure that we are kind of properly regulating our fund here in Denver all right thank you so much uh so now we'll we'll turn over to the public comment portion um we have 15 minutes for public comment on this matter all speakers will have two minutes and should begin the remarks by telling the council their names and who you are representing and if you're comfortable if you live in the city and county of Denver uh if you have signed up to answer questions only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel speakers will have two minutes for your remarks.

Please stay on the topic at hand and please direct your comments to the committee as a whole please refrain from profane or obscene speech and refrain from individual or personal attacks.

So we have some folks um signed up for both for for and against and we also have some folks that are signed up in a neutral capacity.

With that said I will go ahead and start um and so we do only have 15 minutes we'll get through everyone that we can get through um in that time that has signed up and if we get through early enough uh I may ask if there is anybody else here um to provide public comment uh and for folks that are our virtual um they will have the timer they'll see it on their end we will not see it on ours um but we have um our parliamentarian who we who will be give signaling me on the time and how much time they have left um so at your two minutes I will have to interrupt and say your time has passed and we'll have to move on to the next speaker just so folks know with that said we'll go ahead and start with our first speaker uh Donald Coo who is virtual can you hear me?

Yes you can go ahead and begin your remarks.

Oh thank you thanks for uh taking my comments uh my name is Don Coo I am a board member for the Lower Downtown Neighborhood Association and I also live in Lodo and I'm here to express my support uh for the change I think it's uh uh uh they've got great objectives to reduce the complexity uh for our businesses uh I do want to mention uh a couple things uh you know I I keep hearing that um part of the reason that that they're going to a discretionary model for hearings is that 95% of their hearings are unopposed.

I can just say in Lodo, you know we have a very active good neighbor committee we have over a hundred good neighbor agreements for our Loto businesses and we attend nearly every hearing and we attend mostly unopposed because we're able to reach good neighbor agreements.

And one of the reasons that um that uh Molly has agreed to do rulemaking for to make some mandatory is because you know we feel it changes the relationship between the RO and our neighborhood and the businesses by making them discretionary and causing the RO to to uh request a hearing as opposed to the to the city requiring it.

It just changes the it makes it makes our relationship with the business awkward, and so that's and and so we're very happy that they have accommodated, you know, at least making some hearings mandatory uh for high density areas.

Um we hope that they would extend that to liquor licenses as well, but that's of course a different matter.

Uh I do want to mention that um we still have some concerns about promoters.

Uh I know that there's uh some work to um add more restrictions to them, but we would like to see we'll address that at a later time to hold promoters more accountable for their bad actions.

Uh and also lastly, I would just want to mention that you know, I don't think anybody really understands.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry, your time is up.

Thank you so much for providing your comment.

Next, we have Devin Dewey, who's in person.

Devin, please come up to the microphone and introduce yourself.

And you will have two minutes for remarks.

Will those ones be up on us?

My name is Devin Dewey.

Um, I'm the founding director of Donsterborough Rights.

We're an organization dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights of sex workers.

I've also been a dancer here in Dunver for eight years.

Um, and we're in a neutral position for this.

Um, but we want to bring up specifically uh the provisions uh that are applicable to all ISINs, specifically uh 1C.

And while we understand that the proposal comes from concern for a safety and entertainment areas, um our workers' privacy and rights uh are paramount.

Um that especially includes amending this provision to include a warrant subpoena or court order for the broad usage of records in this case, and that we ask that you consider the ongoing labor investigation with allegations of widespread city ordinance violations, and that we understand that obtaining records is paramount to ensuring the accuracy of these investigations, as is workers insured safety and privacy with the assurance of warrants to obtain these records by law enforcement.

The consideration we have is that um you dancers have never been able to have any say in the record.

Keeping and data collection that clubs extract from us, regardless of our pushback, it's often met with threats from our uh to our job.

So clubs have keep a concerningly large amount of data and personal identifiable information, along with video surveillance.

This shouldn't be able to be obtained and viewed simply upon request.

The hope is uh with these labor investigations and my own organizing, restore the long stolen agency and rights by both bad faith corporate actors and institutions back to the dancers themselves, and we can definitely inch closer to that by ensuring we don't neglect to skip over warrants, subpoenas, and court orders.

Um several dancers did submit written testimony as they wanted to remain anonymous but still wanted their voices to be heard.

Um so I would encourage some reading of that.

Um they said things like extending access to this information without cause reinforces the systemic obstacles we continue to face and undermines trust in the institutions responsible for protecting privacy.

Thank you so much, Devin.

Thank you for your comments.

And I apologize, I got a little out of order.

So I'm gonna go next to Regas Christo.

Um I've been in Denver for 40 years.

I didn't even know about this process going forward about changing the rules.

My experience and what I see from what from where your um the proposals are all the power goes to that director of exercise license.

In this case, a 40 years that I've been in business, the only person that had integrity, honesty, and stood up from me was a lady by the name Beth McCann.

I have no confidence, zero confidence that this director was qualified to run the department knowing um all these issues.

I had a re uh just to tell you, an example, I had a legal hearing, which she allowed 10 people to testify, all in opposition that didn't consume alcohol.

By statute, she's supposed to decide in 30 days, she decided in five and a half months.

She must have been Moses on the mountain by the time she came down.

This is not fair because you give him 35 minutes to present a bunch of a bunch of mumbo jumbo bureaucratic stuff, and the rest of us have two minutes.

I can't hear me.

So, like please please keep to the topic at hand.

I'm just giving you a testimony.

If you don't like it, there's a different story.

It's a whole department, sir.

Well, if you read the the the changes that they're making all every place that's a must decide, change to may decide.

I'm a victim of this system for 40 years.

But when you give me two minutes to decide, this is not the part of Congaroo Court, basically.

Keep looking at this at the seconds tweaking away.

Thank you so much.

Next is Rebecca Green.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

I'm Rebecca Green, executive director of MAD Colorado.

Last year, Denver lost 93 people on its streets the most in over a decade.

Statewide, 241 Coloradans died in suspected impairment driving crashes last year.

These are not statistics.

Their parents, children, friends, their families are still grieving.

Matt understands the need to modernize Denver's entertainment licensing system.

What we can't support is one provision in this bill, the authorization for nightlife businesses to operate until 4 a.m.

Because the city has not shown it, shown it will make Denver safer.

The city keeps saying venues open past 2 a.m.

will stagger the dispersal of patrons and reduce incidence.

That's a theory and not a finding.

We looked through the record before this committee.

There's no DPD data on late night DUI patterns, no CDOT crash data by hour, no research backing the dispersal claim.

The research does exist, that does exist, points the other way.

Studies from eight countries consistently show that extending bar hours increases alcohol-related harms, including violence.

The traffic safety math is straightforward.

The average BAC for a DUI arrest in Colorado is nearly 0.18, more than twice the legal limit.

The body clears alcohol at 0.15 per hour.

So a patron who has 0.18 at 2 a.m.

is still 0.15 at 4 a.m.

They are not sober, they are getting into a car during the lowest enforcement window of the night.

Please consider as well fewer rideshare drivers and a public transportation system that is limited at best.

There's also a problem with the security framework.

The requirements that will govern these extended hours, staffing ratios, dispersal protocols, weapons screening don't exist yet.

This council is being asked to vote before that framework is in place.

We are asking for a traffic safety analysis for before a full council vote, finalized security requirements before the ordinance takes effect, and a conversation about whether 4 a.m.

operations needs to be in this bill at all.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, I have Gabe Evans.

In person, hi my name's Gabe Evans.

Um I live in Denver, Colorado, and I have worked in Night Life Industry for five years now.

Um here behalf of uh co-clubs as well as myself.

I just want to touch on the point of extending nightclub operations to 4 a.m.

And without also extending alcohol service, creates a difficult operational imbalance for venues.

For most establishments, alcohol sales are the primary revenue stream that offsets the increased costs associated with late-night operations, including staffing, security, insurance exposure, transportation, coordination, utilities, overall liability management without a sustain sustainable revenue model during these uh additional hours.

Many venues simply won't have the practical reason to remote remain open if this proposal moves forward without addressing alcohol service hours alongside it.

The market will likely correct itself as economics and risk profile won't support extended operations long term.

And also wanted to uh address my concerns about the lack of um language for special special events, and in um in accordance with the 4 a.m.

prolonged hours as well.

Thanks.

Next, uh we have Adam Stappen.

Virtually, yes, can you folks hear me okay?

Yes.

Yes.

Uh my name is Adam Stappen.

I'm an attorney here in the state of Colorado, been practicing alcohol beverage and hospitality law for over 30 years.

I would be there in person.

I apologize.

I'm still suffering with an inner ear infection, so it's easier for me to do it this way rather than be there in person.

I'd like to say a couple things.

First of all, I'd like to one say that I do believe there is existing law that covers a lot of this city's concerns.

If the city is concerned with bad actors, law exists as it stands right now to get rid of the bad actors.

And I believe what the city is doing in earnest and in good faith, and I applaud them for doing that.

However, I think they're doing it to the lowest common denominator.

And if we try to rule and regulate to the lowest common denominator, we have a way of hurting those that are not there, and we have a way of hurting the businesses and burdening the businesses that otherwise should not be affected by these changes or these requirements.

I believe a lot of these changes stem from certain areas within the city.

Not all the city and county of Denver suffers the same issues that others suffer.

So maybe there's another way of approaching an issue related location rather than a broad area change, if you would, of a license type.

The existing license types that the city speaks of, quite honestly, I'd say probably 95 to 98 or 99% of them will fall into two types a dance cabaret or uh standard cabaret.

So really there weren't that many licenses that needed to be changed.

There's just two primary ones that everyone uses within the city and county of Denver.

Uh, I also like to say that I don't believe that's necessary to have a hearing anymore on these because they're no longer attached to an age-gated product.

These entertainment licenses have a standalone feature and not age gated.

I do believe that while the city has done a wonderful job in addressing a lot of the comments and concerns of the constituents, there still exists a lot of vague and ambiguous terms, and I would just caution the city council on adopting those vague and ambiguous terms.

Thank you so much.

Homance.

Thank you.

I believe we have time for one more um signed up public comments.

That is Nico Christelle.

Hello.

Uh first of all, I'd like to apologize for any comments that were directed at you or anybody in the department personally.

Uh, however, it is, it's a it's a personal matter for us.

Um, my dad has wanted to uh open four uh to five venues in the past uh four years, five years.

He hasn't been able to open one.

So when we talk about tracking business and supporting uh entertainment business in Denver, uh that's important to note.

Um businesses like ours don't fear regulation.

Uh, we fear uncertainty.

Um this bill makes Denver weaker, and what I'll discuss today is how it makes investment largely impossible within the regulated market.

As an operator, I now have an undefined duty with attached liability over a public space that I don't control.

That's the what was 20 was 50 feet, now it's 25 feet.

Under section 76, my employees need to make reasonable efforts to disperse people and keep them from congregating within 25 feet of doors.

Failure to do so is unlawful.

Um, that's a public sidewalk.

I can't detain anyone on a public sidewalk.

Um, I can't use force, I can't stop lawful assembly.

Um, and an undefined duty in a public space is the kind of exposure that insurance either prices up or stops insuring.

Second, I hear a lot about the word discretionary.

Um, under this framework, my license lasts one year, and every year I have to file to renew it under standards that the department controls.

And because each renewal is governed by chapter 32 and by the rules that the department writes later, I don't actually know sitting here what I'll have to resubmit or reprove every year.

In large part, I would like to talk uh I'm actually gonna take a second to go on the on those uh safety point.

Overregulating the regulated market, does not get rid of the demand for nightlife.

And if you make it unprofitable, it pushes it in to the unregulated market, which are the raves and the after hours parties that there is no mechanism now to shut down.

Thank you, Nico.

Okay.

Great.

Well, that uh ends our time for public comment.

Thank you so much for those of you who signed up and were able to offer your remarks.

Um with that said, we will go to questions from council members, and I have a cue that is started, and it will start with councilman Cashman.

I will just remind colleagues uh that we still have one additional action item that um we'll need to get to.

I will also just make sure and set the level set with everyone what our committee is here to do today.

It's here to determine not whether or not this passes.

Um, this is a place where we're here to get additional feedback, and then it is determined whether or not this goes to the full body for actual passage of the policy or the ordinance change, proposed ordinance change.

So I just want to be very clear for folks if you haven't participated in these processes before, this does not mean that this has passed.

It means it goes to the full body, which is 13 council members to be able to take this up and deliberate and and have discussion and take a vote.

Um, so with that said, I'll go to council members starting with Councilman Cashman, followed by Council President Sandoval.

Thank you, Committee Chair.

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you to our speakers.

Um my uh question is uh regarding something one of our speakers uh mentioned and that uh we got some written testimony on uh concern for privacy of information, uh workers in the adult and field.

Can you can you address that concern?

Yeah, so what we have uh in the in the bill right now uh really just leaves um the ability to um or put some requirements to maintain records um required by department rules, so we would have that rulemaking process to determine what records would be required to be kept.

And I think the um the important note there is that um that gives us the opportunity to look at each of these types of businesses differently.

So we can set different requirements for the nightlife entertainment businesses from the adult entertainment businesses, and we have been in communication with Devin and some of the other partners, um, you know, within the adult entertainment industry, and definitely want to incorporate their feedback and would definitely be very aware of making sure that we're not um you know taking any risks with privacy issues.

Um, and so what we're really thinking around books and records is things like um, you know, security guards that were on duty, um, uh types of incidents that they had to address.

And um, you know, we wouldn't be requesting or requiring that they maintain any information around um the entertainers that are working on site.

So um, and you know, we can be I'd be happy to make that clarity in the bill, but that is not the type of thing that we were thinking would go into the rules.

Thank you very much.

That's all that thank you.

Council President Sandoval.

Thank you.

Um, I'm remembering this conversation in 2013, and we was the first time that we explored this.

I was working for Councilwoman Montero, and Metro State University actually came out with the report talking about crime and talking about um when could we let times out?

What would help?

And actually, Crissantha Duran was going to be a sponsor of a state bill.

So this isn't new information, this isn't a new thought process.

This isn't something new.

This is something what 10 years later that we are actually have been studying for a really long time in the city and county of Denver of how to make congestion less in these areas where you have an overwhelming amount of liquor license that have nighttime life, and it all happens to be down in the Lodo neighborhood.

There are lots of um incidents that happen when those bars get out and it gets really crowded, and um the one concern I do have about this.

I saw first of all, I support this because we've been studying this since I've, like I said, for 10 years.

We've had universities give us studies on this.

Um my one concern I have is the rule making portion.

That's when it gets complicated.

So you this portion of the process, everyone can give us feedback and we can do amendments.

We can run amendments from now onto the floor.

Like you just said, you're gonna have an amendment.

We just heard from a industry that's really important.

We want to make sure that they're represented in the amendment process.

The attorney who just spoke, you can send it to any of us at City Council, and we can look at your language that you feel like is not um doesn't work.

We can run an amendment.

I feel like it's when it comes to the rulemaking process is when it happens only on your side, and that's not very clear is how do these rules get developed?

When do they get developed?

How do they get enacted?

And how do feedback, how does feedback actually get incorporated into the rulemaking?

Is what I've always heard when we've changed some of the licenses since I've been here for a while.

Um, so any thought on how we can make that more transparent.

I think I didn't realize that even you had the notification.

I'll start pushing that out to my registered neighborhood organizations.

If you're part of that notification process, does rulemaking trigger that as well if you're part of that process?

It doesn't, and it is like a week or two old that notification system.

Um, but no, no rulemaking would not be included in that.

Um, but it be could it be.

Um we could we could look into that.

If I'm gonna get if I'm gonna opt into a system to know what liquor license are happening, I would want to know rulemaking to be able to participate in that rulemaking and how it happens because you have to really be in the nitty gritty of the city to know which agencies are doing rulemaking.

I miss it and I work here.

And we haven't, we've had some very small rule making that we've done over the last couple of years.

Um, so it's been a while since we've done one that would be as comprehensive as this one.

But I think the plan is that we would um you know create work groups um uh around and make sure that we have stakeholders from the various different um, you know, whether that's the entertainment industry from people that sit on good neighborhood committees within their registered neighborhood organizations.

So, um I mean, my my thought is that we would put out um, you know, kind of a call for people that would want to participate, um, have several working sessions where we um we did this with um liquor common consumption areas.

We had a full work group.

We I think we even had a couple of council members that sat on those.

So because this one is, you know, has a lot of pieces that we would be incorporating, and because it would be so comprehensive, that's really what I'm thinking is that it would be a very robust.

We would put out a call for applications to sit on a work group.

There would, you know, it would take three or four months.

We'd probably meet, you know, six or seven times.

That was unintentional, sorry.

Um but and then uh um, you know, go through an uh we have a public hearing that's required um as a part of that final process.

So um there would be public testimony and public input throughout that entire process as well.

And we'd be happy to come back to council and update on that rulemaking as well.

I think that would be helpful in this whole process if you did come back on the rulemaking because that's even when the devils in the details, I can read the ordinance, but then it's also the rulemaking, and then I go back into the rule making and I'm like, oh wait, that actually can't be part of the unit, or it has to be on the fate on the light the the face of the license, and actually now that our um uh noise ordinance have changed, like right, dropping bottles at certain times, that will all they all come together and play or like noise ordinance for if you're in a residential neighborhood, if you're in a protected zone district versus a not one.

So I think those are all really important, and I just want to say I really appreciate you working on this.

I mean, this is literally 10 years, it's been 10 years.

We've had a 10-year roadway runway.

Um, in other municipalities and even other countries, they do stay open later.

And these young kids, I have heard, they don't have anywhere to go.

And if you look at liquor sales, the young generation's not drinking, it's really my age group in the mid 40s, late 40s that we're keeping liquor licenses up and running.

My son and my daughter, who are 24 and 22, they don't go out drinking.

They don't, but they really do want to go out somewhere to hang out.

And my son who works in the industry as a chef, oftentimes he gets off at 12 and he doesn't want to go have a drink, but he wants to go play pool.

He wants to go do other things.

And when he was traveling in Europe, he came back, and his biggest criticism of Denver is we don't have anywhere for people to go after hours.

That's not all based 100% on alcohol.

And so for those in the crowd who, yes, I understand that you have a business model.

Your business model can change, and you can actually look at a different business model, and you can actually go to Berlin, you can go to lots of places in Europe.

They have business models where it's two o'clock, it's done, you're not selling liquor, and people stay out, and it is safe.

So it's innovate your business model.

We've had this same business model in Denver this whole entire time, and now we can come into a different type of of revenue, and you can update your business model and you can base it on other areas because most of the world does this.

I'll just say, as somebody who is just in Berlin last year, they are doing this and they're doing it really well.

So I applaud the work.

The only one thing I'll end on is I'm concerned about lack of revenue.

I never like to see our application fees go down, but I do understand that we are trying to streamline things and make it seem more predictable.

I heard that in the public testimony that we want predictability, so maybe that will offset it.

But I would just question if you're having less revenue, is that actually covering the work that you all are doing?

And maybe you don't have to do more work if you don't have 30 different types of liquor licenses, you only have these now, and it will be more consolidated.

But that would be a question that I would ask to come back, circle back around once this gets implemented is check on that revenue stream.

And is that actually the revenue the type of revenue and the fees that we should be collecting?

Yeah, and we can uh it's hard for us to run that analysis and figure out who doesn't have who has a license now that won't need one in the future.

Um, but we'll keep an eye on the revenue.

And we did pull the numbers right now.

Our total revenue from Cabaret and Amusement licenses for the year is around six hundred thousand dollars total in licensing revenue.

So a small decrease in that, you know, that's a large number, but it's not a um substantial, yeah.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh, next up is Councilman Watson, followed by Council Pro Tamaro Campbell.

Uh, thank you so much, committee chair, and um, Molly and thank you for the tens of meetings we've had on this, and uh the um engaging with uh community members and businesses that may have initially began with concerns.

I know my office of central at least six or seven small group meetings that you all held and have come back with ideas or concessions, so I really appreciate it.

Um I know we're short on time, um, so I'll save my direct questions for y'all once this gets to the floor because there's some residual questions I'm sure you all clean up before it gets to the floor.

But I was curious um for uh technician canabi I see in the audience from district six.

I'm wondering, Kayla, um, if if you will be able to answer or maybe just kind of elevate um some of the safety um uh pieces within this proposal that you believe is helpful, and I want to thank you also for taking me on a very long walk from 12 a.m.

to 3 a.m.

on a Friday and Saturday morning, um, between um ballpark and Lodo to see the let out um crowd and what we experience, and so I appreciate that as well.

So, Kayla, anything you want to elevate from a safety perspective?

Yes, thank you.

Hello, everyone.

My name is technician Kayla Nobby.

I am one of the community resource officers for police district six, which is the downtown area.

Um, thank you for that question, councilman.

I would like to say that I believe that the uh DLCP team has done a phenomenal job of really being thoughtful about connecting with the community, um, the residents who live in the community, the people who run businesses in the community, and also uh working with the police department and our safety officials here in the city, um, and really just taking everybody's feedback and creating uh such a wonderful um ordinance that they've put together.

Um, here in district six, we definitely support everything that they have uh put forth in this ordinance.

Um we do believe that it will have an impact on uh the safety in the area in the Loto area, in the ballpark area, and really help support our businesses thrive and patrons feel safe to come downtown and um really have an even playing field for everyone who's operating a nightlife business in the area.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Committee Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Council President Pro Tem Romero Campbell.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, and thank you again for the presenting the presentation and the briefings.

Um I do want to follow up uh regarding some of the public comment that we had and also um I think it was Devin um that spoke specifically about sex workers and um retaining of the records.

Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Or if there, you know, um I think it was a uh the request was to be able to have a um, a warrant, yeah.

Um, sorry, in the ordinance as well.

Sorry, I know you're back there.

I apologize and that you will ask you to come into the mic.

Um, um but can you talk a little bit more about that and if that's a provision that could be um put in or amendment as well, or why currently there is just open access to those records.

Yeah, I mean I we I don't think we've gotten into as much detail in this one provision of the bill as we would like or that we are prepared to answer right now, but I think we can definitely put some um thought around that and come back with some changes that I think would speak to that a little bit, and just have a little bit more of an in-depth conversation around that particular piece.

I think we're open to um if there are concerns around privacy, open to putting in some uh guardrails.

And our general counsel Jessica Allen is in the audience if she may also want to point in.

Jessica Allen, general counsel with the city attorney's office in our pace section.

I do want to point out to address that concern that the language is actually pretty limited already.

It says that the entertainment business shall provide the records following a request from any law enforcement official or city official.

That's who it's limited to.

So this isn't general access to anybody in the public.

It's already limited by its terms to a request for information that comes from law enforcement or a city official.

Now, if if there's a thought that that needs to be narrowed further, certainly we can consider that, but it's already pretty narrow by its terms.

Yeah, and thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Um there is adult inter entertainment in the you know in my district, and so um I would be very interested in maybe looking additionally at that language.

The real purpose of this is so that when there are incidents that happen at the nightclubs, and we need to figure out who was working that night, which security guard was working that night, because they may very well be a fact witness, we can figure that out.

Who was working, what security guard, what manager, because it's an issue we've had with a couple of nightclubs over the last year where there have been shootings and other violence, where they didn't have records and we couldn't figure out who knew something, who was a witness, who can give us information, who can give the police information to investigate.

So that's the purpose of this, not at all to discover or reveal information about sex workers.

Um thank you.

And I guess we just want to make sure that there's no unintended consequences for the records that are being kept.

Um, appreciate that.

And then also the distance, the let out distance, the 25 um feet.

This is something that has happened um in my district with one of our you know local bars.

Uh, they they let out and in a letting out into a larger parking lot, and we're being held responsible for other people that were also congregating outside and being able to discern who was coming from that particular bar and who was also congregating in the um in the parking lot.

I think is that that just seems to be a little bit of a gray area.

Um, and I don't know if there's additional conversation as to how that would be how you would discern who is coming out of the bar and who is also just congregating in a large parking lot.

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

Um and I, I mean, and I and Jessica may want to speak to this too, but the the language around reasonable efforts is something we've taken from other places as well.

And so, and as a standard we apply uh, you know, often to make sure that um that there is a discernment between you know people that are coming from other businesses, and but if they are making reasonable efforts, um, you know, we can then make a distinction between saying um, you know, you made all the efforts to prevent this from happening, but yet it still occurred.

Um, and so um I think that that's some of the language that we have in there right now.

Um, and I think we did have some conversation, and right now it uses the words in individuals instead of patrons.

We had a conversation around whether it we should have it be patrons, you know, coming from that business rather than individuals, and I think we got some feedback that even that was come, you know, it could be a little confusing to for them to determine whether it was somebody that came from their business or not.

Um, but I think that uh, you know, having the reasonable efforts language gives us the opportunity or the option to um you know make that clarification that you're not responsible for every single activity that occurs out there, but we do want them to make reasonable efforts to prevent that type of activity if they can.

Um I think you know what I was hearing was um it was almost the same distance from the front door of the bar to where people were outside to the front door of somebody's home, and so I think that those are the places where we're just trying to be able to shore that up and also just I think you answered it earlier in like the notification of who will know or or um be able to have input on those licenses.

And we did reduce it, we had some conversations.

We started at 50 feet, and I think we started something even different from that part of that.

So we did reduce it to 25 feet.

Um, and I will just say we do see a lot of incidents within the parking lots of surrounding businesses.

Um, and again, um it's not that people have to go out from the have their security guards don't go detain people, but they do have to make reasonable effort to prevent that from occurring.

Um, and I think there are different business practices that people can put in place to make sure that that dispersal happens in an orderly way and to prevent that disorderly congregating.

Um, and then I do have one other question about young people and um and we probably don't have time to go into all of that now, but um specifically just a place and a safe place for young people to be.

Um, and I think that expanding licenses to allow for um what is it uh 18 and under and having the stamps.

I mean, I grew up in a time where you know it was three-two beer and you could go to clubs and dance, and we just don't have that same type of environment or spaces for young people to be, um, yet they still want to go out and still um be in places where they are safe and able to dance and and hang out or play pool.

So I appreciate you bringing that up, Council President.

Um that is one of the things that I just am not completely clear about in and what those rules are for um for young people in night entertainment.

Yeah, and we can go into more time.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna interrupt because we do have to wrap up on this on this action item.

Um, and I know that there are questions that need to be answered still.

I also know there's still a process ahead.

Um, and I guess what I would ask is that you know, if there are additional questions that we can set send those over, um, and um Council Pro Tem, I just want to make sure there wasn't another question that you had that they can get.

No, actually, yeah, no, I'm I'm good for my questions, and I will put these in writing and send them to you, but I do think that as before you know voting on them on the floor, I would like to be able to make some changes to those provisions.

Sounds great.

Thank you so much.

Um, with that said, I think the only thing I will say is um, you know, I appreciate the outreach that has been done on on this um policy.

I do see I think the last time that there were some community or public feedback sessions was back in April and May, it looks like, and then the other survey was sent out.

I think it it would be important just based on especially some of the feedback we've heard tonight that there be continued some ongoing um feedback sessions.

Um, since it looks like you've sent out another survey, which I appreciate, um, it would be I think helpful and ideal before this does come to the floor to continue some of those processes to do those circle backs on some of the things we've heard today.

Really appreciate the fact that you've incorporated a lot of the feedback along the way and and all of that information.

I will submit my questions to you all.

Um, and I think as far as your next steps, uh, it sounds like will do you do you know the dates yet of what you're anticipating coming to full council, or is that something you're still trying to identify as you're making any um additional changes?

Um if we stayed on the timeline, it would be at council on July 13th due to the Fourth of July holiday.

So I think filing would be July 9th, so we can definitely get a final draft out, you know, well in advance of that since we have the extra week.

Okay, great.

Um thank you so much.

And as a reminder, um, you know, this it this is coming out of committee, does not necessarily designate support from everybody, but it does allow this to go to the next step.

With that said, um, I I need a motion.

So and a second.

Okay, moved by council president Sandoval, seconded by council pro Tam Ramiral Campbell.

Is there a need for a voice vote on this?

A roll call vote.

Sure online.

Seeing none, um this will move forward to the full body and uh we will move transition to our next topic.

Thank you, everybody.

And I've been notified by the producer.

We have uh we'll have an additional 10 to 15 minutes just to make sure that we get this presentation in and any questions from council members.

I'll ask you to please step outside if you need to have conversations so that we can move to our next action item.

Thank you so much.

Please move outside for conversation so that we can move to our next action item.

Thank you very much.

You just don't shout at me.

It's all for you, sir.

I know how you are.

We gotta watch you.

All right, I'm gonna turn this over um to Cole uh and Justin.

Um they're going to be talking to us about uh some budget changes.

All right.

Um, good morning, uh council members.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here.

So I'm Cole Chandler, executive director of host, and I'll let Justin introduce himself.

Justin Sykes, budget management office director.

All right.

Our slides are mighty, but our time is short, so we will be brief.

Um, but thank you to the many of you that accepted briefings on this uh process prior to now.

We have, I think, improved the presentation of the slides, which is available online for folks to see uh throughout the course of those conversations.

Um I think uh it's important to note that we're ultimately here today because families experiencing homelessness in our community are in need of additional support.

You all have conveyed that clearly to us, families themselves have conveyed that clearly to us, and it is a priority that we share at host at DOF in the broader administration, and so um we're here to ask for your support to move some money to provide additional financial resources to support homeless families.

Um, and so uh with that, just a kind of a recap of where we were in March in this conversation in the midst of cold weather shelter season.

Um we had a growing family shelter wait list.

We had some real challenges that we wanted to seek to address.

Um, you all challenged us to do that.

Um, and so we at that time in March set three clear goals uh for Denver and for our system.

We wanted to ensure that no child must sleep outside in Denver.

We wanted to reduce the family shelter wait list um to under 100 families at that time, it had grown to over 350 families.

Um, and then we wanted to reduce family homelessness uh by 20 percent over the course of this next year.

So um, because it's important that uh when we set goals like that, we find clear ways to track them.

We have outlined here on this slide um uh what success looks like towards those goals, and that's something we will continue tracking on over this next year and beyond.

Um, but in March, we outlined for you all five particular recommendations, and we are moving forward with progress on many of those recommendations at this point.

Particularly I want you to be aware that host opened in April an RFP for additional emergency shelter resources for families.

We also opened an RFP for improving the connection center and in particular making that an in-person service.

And we improve some process measurements as well as made a focus on identifying additional housing resources so that families could exit our sheltering system and thereby reduce our wait list.

So we've made great progress on all of those.

Today, in particular, we're talking about assigning a million dollars that would be available for number one on the capital side related to emergency shelter requests.

This slide reflects a request from our chair to really outline the progress that we've made and the additional financial commitments that we've made over the past several months on this, and so wanted to outline for you that at this point we have identified a total of 3.4 million dollars and increased supports for families.

There are a couple of other items that we'll add to that total as contracts are assigned later this year.

But we're proud to, thanks to your support, have increased 30 additional NCS units with Denver Rescue Mission for $600,000.

Today we're sorry, saying what NCS non-congrate shelter, thank you.

Um today we're talking about a million dollars in uh capital improvements for family shelter, and host has in their RFP included a budget of about 1.8 million dollars for family shelter services that will go alongside these capital improvements.

Um any offsets or increases in the connection center contract, we'll update this table with as we assign uh ongoing supportive services related to our housing choice vouchers.

We'll update that table, and then uh we are looking for additional rapid rehousing resources.

Think we have some good progress on that, and we'll so we'll update this accordingly later on.

But at this point, we're at 3.4 million dollars in increased financial commitment and resources for families experiencing homelessness.

Um, just a quick note on our implementation timeline and the specific action today, and then I'm gonna pass it off to Justin.

But we started this process really uh looking for ways to increase our support for families back in March through conversations with you all.

In April, as I mentioned, we opened the RFP for increasing some of these services in June, which is where we are now.

We're moving forward this action to assign uh these capital dollars for family shelter.

Um, if this all moves through with your support, um our next steps would be to uh fully identify a site, do our community engagement process, and then in the fall come back by attaching a service contract.

And so today's particular action is about putting the money up front so that we can do the site identification and move forward in that way, and then we will come back later after our community engagement process with service agreements attached.

But the goal here is to be able to open this in winter of this year so that it's available during our cold weather shelter season, which was quite mild this past year, but according to weather predictions is looking to be more extreme this coming season, and so something we want to be prepared for.

And so, with that, uh just before I turn it over to Justin, the summary of our request today is that we are requesting your support to reallocate approximately a million dollars in unspent ARPA funding to support families experiencing homelessness in Denver, and I'll let Justin provide the details on the specifics for that.

I will go as quickly as I can, so that if any of you all have questions, we can get to those.

Uh, but really want to just spend a few minutes talking about the financial mechanics to Cole's point.

We've had the opportunity to brief many of you.

Uh, thank you.

And I think have gotten uh some really good questions that we'll try to preempt here uh this morning.

This is the bill title.

I won't read through that.

Really, our goal is to give you an overview of the city's ERPA expenditures and how we aim to, with city council support and approval, fully spend down all of the money that the city received.

Uh, just as a reminder, I know some of you were on council when the city received the ARPA funding, others were not.

And so, as a reminder, uh, what ARPA stands for is the American Rescue Plan Act.

It was approved by Congress in March of 2021 and signed into law by then President Biden.

As part of the American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA, there was a component referred to as the state and local fiscal recovery funds, and that is what Denver's 308 million dollars came from.

So we received 308 million dollars in two different tranches, the first in 2021, the second in 2022, and those funds were eligible to be put towards recovery and investment opportunities.

Uh, if we jump to the next slide here, uh a couple of really key deadlines that I want to make sure everybody is aware of and understands with regards to ARPA.

The first is already passed.

It's the December 31st of 2024 ARPA obligation deadline.

And so what that means is we have to have identified by that point how we were going to spend the ARPA dollars.

The second really critical deadline is not yet passed.

It's coming up at the end of this year, December 31st of 2026.

That is the deadline by which we actually need to spend all of the dollars.

If we don't spend all of the dollars, anything that we haven't spent by December 31st of this year must be returned to the federal government.

We are trying to avoid doing that.

However, uh, we're very limited in how we can reallocate dollars.

We can only reallocate dollars within what was already obligated as of the end of 2024.

So that's kind of a key uh backdrop to all of this that uh we're proposing.

Uh we'll not spend much time on this next slide looking at how the city back in 2021 went about determining how to spend the ARPA dollars.

Uh the main purposes were really on recovering from the pandemic and then identifying some strategic one-time investments.

Uh, Mayor Hancock at the time worked with City Council and helped see a stimulus investment advisory committee.

Uh I think some of you were on that uh and participated in helping inform how these dollars were programmed.

Um this is a really high-level overview, just qualitatively identifying some of the key priority areas that the city identified for ARPA funding.

Uh, if you're interested, there's a link on this slide that will take you or the public to a really great dashboard that gets into every single one of the various ARPA projects, whether or not it's been spent down, who the community partner was that we worked with.

And so if you're interested in in the nitty-gritty details, uh you can follow the link on this slide and learn all sorts of information about all of the different ways in which the city spent ARPA.

Uh, just as a snapshot update where we're at, of that 308 million.

Uh, we've spent about 298 million dollars of ARPA funding that we received.

We've got a little under 11 million available.

Uh we believe that most of that will be spent by the end of this year by that deadline.

However, we're proposing these reallocations uh just to ensure that we can fully spend down the amount that currently is unspent, uh, to the extent it is not needed to complete the projects.

Uh, just as an example, in the Department of Finance, we have some ARPA administrative dollars, a few hundred thousand dollars that with this council action, we would be able to reallocate to a project that was used what was uh spent both capital and ARPA dollars to then free up those capital dollars to put them towards the family sheltering work that Cole mentioned uh in the first part of the presentation.

Uh real quick, I think one of the questions that came up in our briefings with council members is uh are we taking money away from existing ARPA projects?

And the short answer is no.

We're not asking any agencies, we're not asking any nonprofits to pause on spending.

Really, what we're trying to create is the vehicle through which to, if projects organically underspend, repurpose those dollars in a way that would allow them to use them for family shelter at a timeline that does not end at the end of this year.

Um, so glad to go into more detail, if helpful, but just wanted to make sure everybody was aware on the slide.

We do tick through some of the areas that we anticipate underspend.

This is something that the Department of Finance is meeting with those agencies that have that approximately 10 and a half million dollars of unspent ARPA on a monthly basis to understand are you getting the invoices from the contractors?

Are you paying those invoices timely?

Are those contractors able to fully staff the contracts?

In some cases, that might be one reason, for example, why a contractor would underspend is because they're not able to fully fund the positions contemplated under the contract.

Just real quick slide on the mechanics.

What we are seeking city council support and approval for is the ability to reallocate ARPA dollars from the ARPA operating fund to the ARPA Capital Fund.

This steps through kind of the process by which if council were to approve, we would be able to do that.

Additionally, in tandem with this request, we are seeking council support and approval to allocate uh some of the ARPA interest that we've generated.

There are several ARPA positions that are set to expire in the Department of Finance at the end of this year.

And even though ARPA itself will be uh done and over with by that point, we are still subject to audits.

And so I think what we're hoping to get out in front of is before those staff who have been doing great work on ARPA, helping with the accounting, helping with the data analysis and data collection before they see that end state of December 31st of 2026, make sure they're aware that they would still have a job through ARPA interest funding to the end of next year to ensure that if the Treasury Department audits us, uh which it's very possible they will, uh, which we know Denver is one uh city that that the federal government, as part of FEMA, has come after and may do so as well in ARPA, that we're prepared for any subsequent audits.

Uh we also every year have the city's annual single audit, and because ARPA is such a large source of federal funding, it has been, and we expect for 2026 will again be audited.

Uh, and so that is a part of this act in tandem with trying to free up these dollars for family shelter capital improvements.

Um, last slide is just an attempted visualization of the transaction we're proposing related to freeing up CIP budget uh by taking ARPA dollars that uh we don't expect to be spent uh to the extent that they aren't and those projects close out, moving that capacity over to this project that was split between CIP funding and ARPA, and then move some of those expenses that had hit the capital improvement program budget to then that freed up ARPA funding.

Uh so that's it.

Uh glad to add a field any questions that you all have uh either here today or in any follow-up briefings or written QA.

All right, thank you all so much, and thank you for working with us to bring this to to the committee.

I council members, I I asked for this to come because I thought it was important for this information to be publicly known.

I of course it's all public anyway, but I just thought the presentation was more given um kind of everything that's going on.

So uh any questions from council members.

Councilwoman Tamramaro Campbell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, and just so we remember ARPA dollars are one-time use, correct?

And you do have an allocated project that you want to work on for family housing.

Is there an identified location?

There's not an identified location yet.

And so where we are specifically at this moment is we're basically asking uh for the ability to move forward with that piece and the next step, and so um then we'll be uh coming back uh engaging community around specific location once that's selected, and then I identifying um uh service provider to serve that site and bring forward a service contract according to that site.

So this kind of phase one in the summer is to free up these funds, which requires a bunch of internal mechanics, uh, as Justin articulated to move those forward.

Um so that gives us the confidence then to move forward with the site selection and community engagement and assigning a service provider later on.

Just to add on to that really quickly, Council uh President Protown.

So essentially what we would be doing is moving costs that had initially hit the capital improvement program budget to ARPA.

Funding that would does expire on December 31st, 2026 expiration on them.

Or until it's rescinded or reappropriated by City Council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Watson.

In addition to uh Council President Protam's question, since it is one time for this for the opera dollars, understand the CIP piece as well for the long-term support of wherever this site is and long-term support of those families.

Will we be seeing something separate within your budget proposal for a long-term care?

We know that in Councilwoman Romero Campbell's district, the family housing was uh the cost um because of dealing with entire families.

Um forecasts may have increased, so I'm curious as to how we're maintaining them.

Great question.

So um we have available dollars in the homelessness resolution fund, and so we have set those aside as we've gone through our 2027 budget process, we've uh planned on using these for the foreseeable future uh at 1.8 million dollars, and so the service dollars are set aside in our homelessness resolution fund, which is the special revenue fund um for supporting people experiencing homelessness in Denver.

Just to add on to that, I think one of the questions that we got during some of the initial council briefings is why aren't we putting the freed up ARPA funding towards operations?

And I think the the best reason for that is we try to match ongoing revenue to ongoing costs, and because we know that this revenue that we're able to free up from CIP is not ongoing, uh, because it's it's using repurposed ARPA funding.

Uh, we we are using that for the one-time capital improvements at this potential future site.

Um, thank you so much, Commissioner Chair.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions from council members.

Just double check online.

Okay, seeing none there.

Um thank you again very much for for bringing this.

I'm looking forward to hearing more on the entire plan as a whole of how we plan to address um family homelessness.

And it sounds like this is this is a chip of it, right?

Um, and so we know that there's a lot more to go based on the briefings that we've been provided.

Uh I think it would be great if it if it isn't already scheduled to look at having um a rep briefing for committee for um community community planning and housing.

Um, the committee there to see you know where things are at, what the current status is, because you mentioned that there's still things coming through.

Um, and then as we of course enter budget hearings, um, it would be great to also have a clear understanding of how dollars are gonna be allocated to address this need um as you know this has been a priority for for the body.

So um all right.

Well, with that said, we have to thank you.

Uh council time cambill has moved, and I need a second.

Uh councilman Watson seconded.

Uh do we need a roll call vote?

All right, seeing none uh there, this will move forward to the full body.

Uh thank you so much for bringing that.

And then we have five items on consent.

Those will also move forward to the full body, and we are adjourned.

Yeah.