AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending sections 6-206 and 24-508, Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding the hours of operation of retail marijuana stores and medical marijuana centers. Allows licensed marijuana stores to remain open until 10:00 pm. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-3-17. Amended 4-17-17 to clearly communicate to the public and to the marijuana industry the first date upon which any retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center may remain open until 10:00 p.m. will be Monday, May 1.
Nothing has been called out under bills or from consideration. Council Bill 324 as amended concerning hours of operation of retail medical marijuana centers has been called out by both Councilman Ortega and Councilman Herndon to offer some new amendments under pending. Nothing has been caught up. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen, Councilor Herndon, where you put Council Bill 324 as amended on the floor. Mr. President, I move that council bill 324 as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved and second it. Councilman Ortega, will you please offer your first motion to me? Sure. And let me just first say that you all received a copy from me last Friday that showed them as one amendment. I separated them out both A and B as separate amendments. So let me start with the first one. Mr. President, I move that to amend Council Bill 17 324 in the following particulars on page one after Section three, add the following subsection and letter appropriately for any location where there is a pending application on May one, 2017 for a new retail. For marijuana store license or a new medical marijuana center license. And there is an existing retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center already operating on the premises. The existing retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center shall remain subject to the former 7 p.m. closing time unless and until the license is granted based upon a determination that the applicant is in compliance with all applicable state and city laws. All right. It has been moved and seconded comes from the county council, one or two. So what this amendment does is it says that for those applicants that are pending going through the process of awaiting the issuance of a license, they would not be able to expand their hours to 10:00 until they are granted a license and shown they are in full compliance with state and local laws. Okay. Comments by other members of council. Questions by other members of council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Ortega, just in reading the. The unless and until it occurs to me that if an applicant is, say, is applying to add a retail license to an existing medical marijuana center. But then that is denied. Let's suppose that is denied. The way I read this, the existing medical marijuana center would not be able subsequently to a denial to to then extend its hours until ten. Is that your intent or is that do you read that the same way? Yes. So as you know, in some cases we have single locations where it's just either a medical or a retail license. So in the case where somebody is wanting to in the case of the medical, they want to add a retail. Correct. They would not be able to expand the hours until they can show that they have complied with everything for the new license at that location. And I would just ask that if there is any further clarification from our city attorney that I'd ask David Bardwell to weigh in on this as well. Okay. David, can I ask you then to give your opinion? If the new if the license is being applied for is then denied? Would the existing medical marijuana center be able to extend its hours the way under this wording because it says it shall remain closing at 7 p.m. unless and until the new license is granted? That means if they don't get the license, they can never open them. Told them that. David Broadwell, Assistant city attorney. I think that's a correct reading of it. If and if the new licenses denied, I think it's based upon the fact that something is deemed to be wrong at the premises or or in terms of prior behavior of the licensee or lack of qualification for the new license, which is intended to be part of the objective of the amendment is to keep them at seven because some reason arose showing they didn't merit a new license in that location, presumably traceable to some problem at that location. Okay. I might suggest it could also simply be because there was no need or desire established for a retail component at the medical location. I don't know why that would handicap the hours for the medical. So I but I do understand the lay out the circumstance you outlined. Thank you. That's all. All right. Thank you, counsel. Councilwoman Blake. Thank you, Mr. President. I. I was out of town all weekend. And I know you e-mailed these out late Friday afternoon, but we've spent months talking about this store hours and had hours and hours of community input. And I don't feel like we're going to have any sort of discussion except for what we're doing here. And so. I find that problematic since we spent so much time coming up with a good, solid compromise. But for this particular amendment, I'm wondering what what problem we're trying to solve. I don't understand what this actually does that is beneficial. Mr. President, may I respond? Yes. So this is basically focused on ensuring that people who are going through the pending application process and there are only 30 of them. So we're not talking about the entirety of applications or licenses that we have in the city, locations that they are in full compliance with, state and local laws that every licensee is obligated to adhere to. There is no extra cost. This is part of the costs that the city is already incurring in reviewing these applications and doing the inspections and all the other things. I got a letter today from somebody that said we'd have to create some new task force to to look at these pending applications. It's part of the process that they have to go through. But it basically says that until it's deemed that they are in full compliance and issued a license, then at that time they can expand their hours. Yes. So. In my district, I have a medical center that has been operating for years. I have recently applied for a license to open a retail store. But if they're if they have problems, if they're breaking the rules for their medical license, they're not going to be awarded that retail license. So if they're breaking the rules. To have it. So I don't know why we there. So if they're breaking the rules, that's where my Second Amendment comes in. If they're if they're following all the letter of the law, then they'll be issued their retail license at the same location where their medical is. And they would be granted the opportunity to extend their hours at which time their licenses issued. Okay. And then who is going to ensure that they are saying closing down at 7 p.m.? It's it's going can be part of the enforcement of our excise and license department, as they do with all of our establishments. Though they don't currently inspect that now. So then they're going to you're going to add that, well. They know which 30. Our going through the pending process. And I don't know if those 30 are standalones. Actually, in order to apply for a retail license, they already have to have a medical license. So. It's it's a matter of them having to demonstrate that they're in full compliance. As they do today. I again, I would feel more comfortable if this is something that we had heard pros and cons from from exercising license from the police from. Well, unfortunately, we don't have anybody here tonight from accessing the license. At least I think so. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman, can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I will not be supporting the amendment because I. I believe that it tries to create new leverage for something we already have, which is a process to make sure folks are following the rules. I don't believe connecting the hours to it makes clear sense. Right. So the goal is if you aren't following the rules, you don't get the license. That's the consequence. Connecting it to the hours, I think is just confusing, particularly for the public, you know, and for the store owners, too, to really be able to to keep track of. So but I chimed in because if this amendment does pass, there's a typo in it. I think Councilman Ortega caught it when she was reading because she kind of paused at it. But there the first line has a four at the end of it that shouldn't be there. And so I think we can wait and see if it passes and then amend it at that point. Or we can do a friendly amendment if the we haven't done a lot of friendly amendments, but in other bodies they serve on if the if the mover in the second degree that that four is a mistake, then we could perhaps strike it. Now I'm getting the thumbs up from the city attorney. So, yes. Okay. Is the second or third agree? Are you okay with that, councilman? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Finally, a moment to strike that for. Thank you. Mr. Brough. I just want to be clear. We just did a friendly amendment to strike. Is there anything that I need to do procedurally? No, I thought that was fantastic. So just. Keep going. Great, great public. You just want to make sure they're good with your lawyers. Okay. Tell Councilman Lopez you're up. Thank you. Mr. President, I think my question was answered and then the series that that was asked. So. Great. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I also won't be voting for this amendment. I think it is. As Councilman Kennish alluded to, it's redundant. The exercise in license looks at the behavior of people in their stores. You have to renew your license every year. So when if people are having problems with the stores of the store as a bad actor, there are already a lot of processes in place so that they would not be able to open another store and they would be under some kind of probation, probably at their original store. And I also agree with Councilwoman Kennish that confusing bad behavior with the time you are open doesn't seem to be connected as well as it as conceptually as well as others have said. So I won't be supporting this amendment. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. I have Ortega and Flynn in the queue. Okay. Councilman Ortega, are you. Yeah, I just wanted to add just a little bit of statistical information that I think is helpful for the listening audience. So when this. Request originally came to us from the industry. The request was so that customers would have the ability to shop in Denver as opposed to going to our neighboring jurisdictions to buy their product after hours. So if you look at the information that I passed out, we have only two jurisdictions that close at seven to close at eight. Two of them close at nine for close at ten, and only three close at midnight. In total, there are 92 locations throughout the metro area that range from two locations by jurisdiction to the largest number next to Denver, which is 23. That's in Aurora. Denver has 218 locations. And as I shared with you earlier, we have 30 pending licenses and only 12 show Coors licenses, which we'll talk about in the next amendment . So I would just respectfully request your support because I think this is a reasonable amendment to the ordinance. And really it's just making sure that everybody is in full compliance. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Fletcher. Councilman Espinosa just popped up and he hasn't said anything. Do you mind if we go to Councilman Espinosa? Councilman Espinosa? Yeah. It's too bad somebody from Excise and license isn't here. Do you? Councilman Ortega, do by any chance have a sense about sort of what some of the issues outline, what what sort of the questionable issues are with some of the some of these licenses that that are that would be maybe potentially subject to act action on this. Are you talking about the Second Amendment, which I haven't read yet? Are you talking about the pending applications? More the Second Amendment. The reason why I'm asking, can we. Deal with that when we come to it? Okay. Yeah, we'll deal with that just second. All right. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I did want to try to get a clarification. And also I join Councilman Espinosa in bemoaning the fact that we don't have exercise in license here to address some of this. But Councilman Ortega, do you. You keep saying 30 pending licenses. The last report we have that I had was as of April 1st, there were still 60. Are you saying that there are 30 of those 60 that fit the circumstances and you have that figure from excise. Information that I received from exercise on a license. Okay. I just wanted that clarification, Mr. President. Thank you. All right. It's been moved in. Second amount of secretary. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. I wasn't quick enough. I wanted to get a quick point of clarification from Councilwoman Ortega that we're only talking about the the 7 p.m. closing time, that there still is the entire needs and desires hearing process as well. So so you're proposing to also have the needs and desires hearing process, either a daytime or an evening hearing for these pending licenses, but then also restrict their hours of operation to 7 p.m. until they're approved. Is that correct? It is already part of the current ordinance that they have to go through. I'm not adding that as something in addition because it's already there. So all I'm saying is that as people are going through the pending application process, they have to demonstrate that they're in full compliance with state and local laws before they can expand their hours. And it would be after the licenses issued. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Here we go. Council. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. And I apologize for having so many questions here, but didn't get a chance to review it and have the discussion. I'm also echo that I'm sorry we don't have staff here to answer some of this, but as I'm reading through this, in my reading, you write that if there's somebody who's in good standing but they have a pending license, they could be stuck at seven. Even if there's somebody who is in who has something that they're working through that they're in trouble with, and they could automatically go to ten because they don't have a pending license. So this could snare somebody in good standing because they're pending. Well, somebody who's not in great standing is able to open the ten while they're working to come into full compliance with whatever they're in violation. It's based on the location. David, do you want to add anything further? Councilman Clark, I was listening carefully to your question. When you say not in good standing. The next amendment that the councilwoman is going to propose regards a similar sanction on people who are pending some disciplinary action. And if they have some sort of show cause or disciplinary action pending, they too will be stuck at 7 p.m. unless and until the disciplinary action is resolved. So so would that one would ensnare, whether it's at the same location or not. Anyone who has pending would already get snared in the Second Amendment, and this amendment might snare someone who is in good standing but happens to have something pending. Yes, but. But. But both. Both relate to the specific location, either the specific location where a new license is pending or the specific location where a disciplinary action is pending. Both categories, if both amendments were to pass, would be subject to staying at 7 p.m.. But if somebody was going through disciplinary action and had something pending, this one doesn't pass. The next one does. They would still be stuck at seven because they're under disciplinary action. Correct? Okay. Thank you. All right, Councilwoman Sussman. Well, thank you, Mr. President. I think this discussion is an excellent example of why bringing amendments to council night puts us all into confusion. We have a regular marijuana committee that meets regularly and asks people from both sides or not as if there were two sides from all sides of issues like this, so that we can help get our questions answered to think carefully through what the what the implications are with their unintended consequences. And that's why I think it's very difficult to be doing committee work on the bench. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Uh, Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Cashman, can you go to Councilman Cash? Yeah. Yeah, let's go to Councilman Cashman. Abstinence from the thing. As an escort. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, you're back up and you're not in your seat. You know, this happens in Washington. You know. That's as close to your back up. I'm trying to. So I wish I could ask that other question and understand all these proposed amendments collectively because. I support these in concept. But, you know it's it creates. I'm more interested in the next amendment, which is the disciplinary action, because this would if if an amendment on the front end hours is is passed by this council, as has been discussed previously, you could with this one amendment when there isn't disciplinary action involved, could essentially squeeze in the inner you know in this the reduce the total number of hours that these current licensees could operate. So I wish I understood how I mean, I wish we could ascertain all three together. So I miss Mr. Bradwell because I wasn't totally following your in council and Clark's discussion. This. This this amendment that is currently on the floor. Is is agnostic on whether there is disciplinary action or not. Correct. Correct. But this amendment does not. Passing or failure of this amendment does not preclude anything in the subsequent amendment that Councilwoman Ortega is proposing. Correct? Correct. Thank you. All right. It has been moved going once. And second to Madam Secretary, Rocco. Ortega, I. SUSMAN No. BLACK No. Clark No. ESPINOSA Asim. Flynn. Gilmore No. Brandon Cashman, No. Can each. LOPEZ No. New. ESPINOZA Hi. Mr. President. No. Please close voting against the results. Sorry. I'm just making sure. I think we got everybody. Okay. Five eyes and eight knees. Yeah, that's. Okay. Councilwoman Black voted no. No, and she turned up as a yes. We have to run, but. Okay, I'll change it to and May. And so we have Espinosa earned in New Ortega as. Yes. News. No. Two only changed that one. So it should be I think it should be three. Feet. Three, ice, ten. You said he was nine. You were ninth. Okay. Four ice. And nine. Yes. I believe, councilman. Just for the record, councilman who said no, but he is an I. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Great. So verify that it is. The amendment fails. Um, and Councilman Ortega. But your second. You have another motion, so please read your second motion to. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 17 through 24 in the following particulars on page one after Section three, add the following subsection and letter appropriately for any location where there is a pending disciplinary action in regard to a retail marijuana store license or a medical marijuana center license on May one, 2017, the retail marijuana store or Medical Marijuana Center shall remain subject to the former 7 p.m. closing time unless and until the disciplinary action is concluded, including any judicial appeals from the disciplinary action. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Your explanation of the amendment, Councilwoman Taylor. So this. Amendment prohibits extending the hours for a licensed marijuana business from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m.. In cases where there is a pending disciplinary action against the business, let me also clarify that this changed from the previous copy that you received. We had someone raise a question about whether or not we were talking about the holder of a license, and it was not my intent to have the holder of a license that may be named in an LLC with another location. To be affecting any other location is only the location where the disciplinary action has taken place. So that's what this would do. All right. Questions. Comments. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. So I guess my concern my question on this one is, in my district, we've had a couple of of locations that have been bad actors. And in an effort to get them out, someone else has come in to that location, taken over the licenses and turned around to be very positive, contributing to the community, working with the neighborhood associations. So if my reading this right that the new person who's coming in to try and fix the problem because it's tied to the location would be essentially penalized because that location was under review. I guess that I didn't quite catch what you're talking about with the location versus the person. But I know in my district we have had some actors that weren't doing a good job and were able to replace them at that location with really good ones. So it's. A let David chime in, but it's the location with the people that are operating at the time. That the new operator where to come in is not so. So, David, could you clarify between location in license. It is location and the the requirement to stay at 7 p.m. is during the pendency of the disciplinary action. After the disciplinary action is resolved, however it's resolved it then goes to ten. If the disciplinary action is a revocation of the license, there's nothing there anymore to stay open till ten, seven or ten. Right. But but the way it's worded, it's only staying at seven while the disciplinary action is pending. It doesn't forever run with the land, councilman, if that's why one of your concerns is just during that finite time period. Okay. And then my second question is with this during any appeal. So if they're if they move out of this, can a positive hey, now the disciplinary action we've resolved that be appealed or is that again, I'm confused and concerned if somebody fixed the problem, could someone raise an appeal against them in in an attempt to keep them closed earlier? I'm not too familiar with the appeals process. That the use of appeal in this context means that some sanctions have been imposed against the licensee. They decide to take it to court, to challenge it. And as long as that court challenge continues, they're going to be stuck at 7:00. As long as they continue to fight the discipline. But that would mean that the court has decided that they should be disciplined, not that they've been off the hook. They've said, oh, no, you're good. You can't appeal. You can't get stuck in and appeal that way. Only if the court has ruled that you were in violation and should be punished. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. A similar question to Councilwoman Ortega. You had mentioned earlier that there were about a did you say 12 locations or 12 existing medical marijuana centers or retail that are currently in this? I caught up in this amendment that had pending disciplinary action. That is correct. It's 12. And that came from excise and license. Correct? Okay. Thank you. I just wanted that clarification. All right, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. So I actually wanted to ask, when I was working on our cap bill last year, I learned that there is a very wide range of issues that you can have with the license, ranging from not having a plant tagged to like black market trafficking out the back door. And we spent a lot of time last year thinking about that and defining it very carefully. Now, when you see I just am curious, because this language just says pending disciplinary action, it doesn't say for a year, it doesn't say for a show cause hearing, and it also doesn't say for a serious matter. And so I just wanted to check with, you know, Mr. Broadwell to see whether or not this is adequately narrow language to really be as narrow as you're describing it. Because we might as my understanding, you needed to use much narrower language to get at just serious offenses versus at any given time. You know, we have dozens and dozens of folks who have small issues that, you know, maybe a reporting error, a lag in a report, which are, I think in a class that I think we would all agree is different than, you know, having serious concerns. So I just wanted to ask about that issue. And I know it's hard without the department here, but. So let me just address that very quickly. The list that I received from exercising license does not give me any indication what the type of violations are. I would assume that they are looking at very egregious violations to create a show, cause hearing and warrant somebody to have to come in as opposed to not having a plant tape, you know, without having somebody here to answer these questions. And I'm not sure why we didn't ensure that somebody from exercising a license was here is a little concerning. But, you know, I'm happy to share this document with you, but it doesn't clarify what the offenses are that put them in this condition. Of. Use and disciplinary action. Is the term used in the code, both the medical code and the retail code, to apply to any rule violation, any statutory or local city ordinance violation. So it is a generic term that encompasses both major and minor to get to your original point. Okay. So I get the idea of, if I may, Mr. President, yes, I get the idea of serious violations, which I'm guessing if there's show cause hearings, there are. But the language is not narrow enough and I cannot support it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. I think we have. I'm sorry. Our list, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. I wanted to I on the list that you had sent out Councilman Ortega for the show cause hearings. The there's a step activation date and then an expiration date since we don't have someone here from excise and licensing. Can you answer what the step activation date and the expiration date? How how those if you could explain those a little bit more, that would help to make a decision on this amendment. So when I requested the data, this is what I received. There wasn't any clarification or explanation provided. That gives me some clear distinction to adequately address your question. Okay. Thank you. So I guess looking at this, I share the concern that Councilwoman Sussman had talked about, that it's really hard to make a decision on an amendment to a piece of legislation without having a conversation and without having to. Without being able to ask excise and licensing exactly what this means, how it's going to be enforced. And all of those questions that I think in making good legislation would be asked. And so I just wanted to put that out there. And. Thank you, President Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Down to Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Ortega, I told you earlier today in an email that. In concept, I'm not opposed to this, but I think there's too many unknowns. Again, there's a lot of questions that we're not getting answered. It's also not honoring due process. I'm also concerned about competitors. I in my district, we had some issues with some competitors accusing a another business of something that might have been unfounded. And in in that situation, someone would not have their due process. I, I feel like in concept I could get behind this, but there really are too many unknowns. And if we could have a larger discussion about it and hear from all the sides and have. Talk through what those questions are and get the answers to those questions. But as it is tonight, I just feel like there are too many, too many unknowns. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Martel. You mind if I get to Espinosa a little bit? Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez was actually second to chime in, and for some reason, the system is going in. It's going haywire. So I defer to him. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, sorry about that. Okay. Well, I just my question was, how many? I'm trying to figure in concept I'm supportive of the idea. I'm just trying to figure out how many how many licenses at any given time are in some kind of disciplinary. Procedure or what has been the majority of disciplinary actions? I mean, have they been serious? Have they been. Small. I mean, I think I'm thinking a disciplinary action could possibly be, you know, serious violations like saying to a minor or, you know, not securing a door. But I'm wondering if it was maybe if someone can be disciplined for lighting or for storage or. I'm not too sure. I just kind of want to understand the range of of of disciplinary actions and what the majority has been. So, again, this is where somebody from excise and license should be here to help answer those questions. And I just want to very clearly state that if you recall, at the last meeting we had, I passed out a document that had some amendments that we didn't have time to discuss because there was a rush to get this ordinance filed and bring it forward. So we didn't get to have the discussion in committee as opposed to having it on the floor now. This is a different take from what I brought forward at that meeting. There wasn't an appetite for some of those recommendations that I made. But, you know, it's the prerogative of any council member to file a bill or an amendment to bills at any time. And so I think it's important that we ensure that as a city, we are doing the due diligence that is required to ensure that we have operations in full compliance before they are issued a license and then allowed to extend their hours. And if we have people going through the disciplinary process, they shouldn't automatically get to expand their hours until those issues are resolved. And so that's what this does. I'm sorry, I can't answer your question about how many and what all are the various types of ongoing disciplinary incidents that, you know, come through exercise and license on on a regular basis? The information that I've shared with you is what I receive from excise and license about the number that are in process right now. And that's 12. In terms of those that are going through the disciplinary process and we'll have a show cause hearing. Councilman. You want to. If I may, would you be open? There's a thing I think there's a lot of unknowns and I think in concept. Councilman Ortega, I support something like this. I mean, in a lot of ways. And, you know, I've been going back and forth and. Okay. Do we regulate like alcohol and keep to the spirit of kind of regulating like alcohol? But I look at the alcohol regs and they're totally messed up. That's nothing to model. Right. It's for me, it's like that's really nothing, the model, because it's very weak. And it was written with with no business owners only in mind. But when I, when I, when we compare something to like like this, I mean, I bring that up because this is something I would definitely be interested in for other. Purposes for even alcohol, retail, alcohol. I think for us there's a lot of issues and when and with that side of it and when I look at when I asked the question in committee of the Denver Police Department, can you show me any crimes related to properties or what are the crimes related to properties of dispensaries versus retail alcohol? By a long shot, it was retail liquor stores that were like completely problematic. Right. And if we had something like this to be able to punish it and say, okay, well, you know, the problem is, is that it's all state legislation, right? And we can't touch it. So I guess that's my point being that, you know, the regs for alcohol totally are lame. And I think we're getting a little bit more thoughtful when it comes to marijuana. So when in saying that, Councilwoman, would you be open to. I would I would love to hear the excise and license chime in on this. I would love to hear some of our questions on this. And I don't know if maybe you'd be open to a postponement rather than see this go down in flames. Well, it doesn't mean that if it goes down, we couldn't bring it back and have further conversation about it. That's just my only concern is I would rather hear that information and data. Yeah, it's sad that we didn't. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. As you know, a bill can come back any time for amending it. So, Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. So I think part of the reason why the MJ businesses is better off than are better actors than the liquor industry in some cases is because of the rulemaking that has been done to date , both by this body and excise and licensing. But I wanted to sort of first speak to the councilman. Clark used the word penalize. And I just want to say that I don't actually see this as penalizing Asian because, you know, these businesses currently thrive in the in the with the 7:00 window. So being stuck with that 7:00 window during disciplinary action just means that you probably have greater incentive that if you if everyone if the windfall and incentive mean the windfall that everyone believes going to later hours is that's incentive to sort of rectify your disciplinary action, you know, in a sort of strong and an enduring way. I have one question for councilman and then a follow up with David Broadwell. Councilwoman Greenwich, you had used some phraseology about what we I can't remember what it is about the sort of degrees of discipline. What was the terms that you just used? Yeah, I was just looking to see if I could get access to any of my records from the first marijuana debate last year. And I don't they're all archives. But as I recall, there was a class of violations that were considered safety sensitive and they were eight of them maybe that Marley had identified and, and then everything else was more administrative. Not that it, you know, not that tagging plants is an important, but it's not quite the same safety risk as, you know, serving two minors, for example. And so so so there was a clear line and it was a line that excise and license themselves had used in internally. But it wasn't something as as I think David has confirmed that this language captures. So so there is a there is a line out there and I and I believe that correct me if I'm wrong, David, as I trying to find this, I couldn't I think we might have written it into the standards for the lottery. If the lottery was ever to occur, then folks who have a violation in that class of those safety sensitive violations is not eligible to be in the lottery. I think that's where we used this distinction, if I'm not mistaken, and apologize. That's a very good reminder, I think. I think that is accurate in terms of why we were making the distinction in that ordinance. So I wish we had that exact language because the question I have for Mr. Broadwell is if we had if if there was a simple amendment of the amendment to after it says for any location where there is pending pending disciplinary action and we inserted and the manager has determined the vehicle manager of exercise license has determined the violation is is is a safety suit since sensitivity or whatever that language is does that you know. You know what? What I'm trying to do is is there an amendment that could be offered that would actually both require them to be having pending disciplinary action and leave some latitude for the manager of excise and license to have rulemaking on their side to sort of determine when when it is the threshold is crossed where it warrants restricting maintaining these hour restrictions versus not. Councilman. What you just said is doable. That's not how I was directed to draft. But there would be ways to make distinctions or nuances in terms of who has to stay by the 7:00 hour and who doesn't. This is this was designed whether whether we were to scramble and make some sort of distinction or pull the code and see how we've done it in other contexts. It still is only relevant to those that are pending on on May 1st. Do I have the right May 1st of 2017? Right. This is to say, everybody on if if the bill passes, everybody on May 1st is going to be able to go to 10 p.m.. The purpose of both of the Ortega memos was to suggest, but there will be some exceptions. The one you're debating now is for the really small number that are facing some sort of disciplinary action right now. And unfortunately, we're all kind of at a loss in terms of. Councilman, your question. Knowing of that number, how many of them would be in the serious category versus how many wouldn't? We just don't know. You know, in terms of as we sit here right now. Thanks for that. Because it's sort of overlooked the date definition because that's that's sort of where I guess this this rule fails is that if there's this is if there's disciplinary if I understand that part, if there's disciplinary action later, you can't actually go back in and reduce hours. That's right. This amendment wouldn't cause you to have to roll back to seven. Next year or the year after pending disciplinary action. This only has to do with the ones that are in the pipeline now with some sort of disciplinary action as the law goes into effect. That's the way it's drafted. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I see let's see here. Let's go to Councilman Antioch. If we go to Councilman Clark in Flint. Yes. Actually, in New and her goodness OC clerks. I think he was the president and Councilman Espinosa almost asked my exact question. So thank you for that. You know, I will stick with my word penalty because I think everyone else is allowed to do something. But you got in trouble and you're not. Sounds like penalty to me. But other than that, your question was what underwear? What I was wondering. So, you know, I in theory, I have like this idea. And, you know, as we dig further into it, I have more unanswered questions, which makes it really hard up here making a decision now. But I do worry about the same thing when I had similarly overlooked the date and then went back to it and said, Wait a second, so this is only for these 12 people. What about the people who get disciplinary action on May 2nd? There can still up until ten and I guess I would prefer we have a broader conversation about is a penalty of going to 7:00 a good method of getting bad actors to play by the rules and be good. And if it is, then it's broader than just these 12. These 12 seem to fall into a weird snafu of you happen to have discipline on this date. That might not be a very big thing. Maybe it was a plant tag that you were in trouble with on May 1st and the next day somebody got some black market trafficking and they can stay open until ten. Again, I think, you know, I like the idea. I'm just struggling with the details and the nuance of of how it would work. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Let's see here. I'm losing weight. We're having some issues with our Flynn. Are you are you next? Yeah. Mr. President, I just clicked out because Councilman Clark actually spoke to some of what I was was going to suggest. And I just wanted to say that I now understand why exercising licenses in here. And I think when you're. Well, we'll save that for another day. Councilman, new. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think all of us are frustrated because we don't have enough information. We don't have the right people here to answer our questions. And and we didn't get a chance to talk about it in committee. And so I hope that I echo Councilor Lopez suggestion of postponing this and hopefully both of these bill ones that failed. And when this one can come back and have a can be further defined and discussed at Councilwoman Blake's committee, and we can bring forward something that that we can all agree on. So thank you, Mr. Brennan. Thank you, Councilman. And I look at Councilman Ortega, and maybe you want to wait to the rest of the comments. But that suggestion of potentially bringing this back to this idea to committee, are you open to that? I'm open to that. I'd like to hear the rest of the comments. Great. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. I had tried to pull out my comment because Councilman Clark had asked my question. And so it won't let me they won't. Let me know. So thank you. Thank you, Granicus. Okay, um, let's see. Uh, Councilman Espinosa, did you pull out, too? No, I didn't. I'm back. Here. So I wish we had a sausage making committee so that we could. We could do this. You know, when when there are there things because there's a lot of merit to I see in this. And and so my kneejerk reaction was always, yeah, I support this sort of thing. But now after just hearing the conversation and dialog among my colleagues, which we can't do, and unless it's a public meeting and if we didn't touch on it at the committee meetings that we had, you end up in this situation. But so the two things that I would like to see, you know, and I could offer them in motion and amend, but I don't I would rather have the council, the sponsor, take this up if if she if she chooses is. Yeah, I would like to see inclusion of the manager of excise and licensing in determining the level of violation and then to make this work both now and in the future. It should simply read on May 1st, 2017, or after. And once you do those two things, I sort of think that for me, you capture some latitude by the manager who is more who is tremendously more versed in the subject matter. And it makes it so that this disciplinary action is a tool that is, in fact, there for subsequent violations. Thanks. Okay, Councilwoman Ortega. So the only problem with that recommendation is make first is next week. So trying to address any of these applications that are going or operations, I should say, that are going through the disciplinary action means that they will automatically get to expand their hours to 10:00 unless we postpone the entire ordinance tonight. And the fact is that when we had most of these discussions. Until we specifically and until I specifically asked excise and license to provide information and come to committee to answer certain questions. They were not part of the conversation. This was city council making these decisions, which, yes, we are the legislative body, but we have to have input from excise and license to be able to understand what the full implications are of some of these things that we're talking about and without having the information readily available to all of us. It is hard to make these decisions. And so, you know, yes, we get to do this, but we can't do this in a vacuum. And so I am more than happy to withdraw this amendment, but I would respectfully request that we change the date of the. You know, the enforcement date or the activation date of when we extend the ten PM hours. Otherwise, this conversation tonight is a moot point if all we're going to do is see every one of them get to expand their hours to ten o'clock. And we're not going to do anything different with folks who are. Currently in review for various disciplinary actions, which again, we don't really have clarity on how severe or how minor those issues are. All I know is that we've got 13 of them in the process right now. Okay, Councilman Ortega, I'm going to I'm going to say this and I'll let Councilwoman Black, this is your bill so you can chime in, too. Is there any appetite to move the date at all? Councilman Black. Not on my part. I mean, we've been talking about this since January. Okay. I'm of. Conversation. I'm going to suggest that we move forward then and just vote this up or down. Councilman Ortega and I will I will say, just as my comments, that I love the idea of this, because you and I both sat in a public hearing to until midnight for not so good actor. I do not believe it's in the right context in the Times. There's other ways for us to get after these bad actors. And so I wonder if bringing the whole conversation back to committee to see if there's another area where we can address this. But in spirit, I will. I'm supportive. But if you want to move this. Let's vote it up or down. Because if we're not really going to deal with this because we're not changing the date. Like I said, the conversation is a moot point. In terms I think there are other things we can talk about dealing with those applications that are going through the, you know, review process. But let's just vote on the amendment. Okay. It's been moved in second. Madam Secretary, Raquel Ortega Sussman. No. Black. No. Clerk. No Espinosa. Pass. Flynn. No. Gilmore, no. Herndon, I. Cashman can eat. Lopez No. No. No. Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President. I. All right, please close voting in US Results. Four eyes, 94. Eyes, nine nays. The motion to amend fails. Okay, Councilman Herndon, will you please read your motion to amend? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 324 as amended, be further amended in the following particulars. On page one lines 19 through 20, delete 8 a.m. and substitute with 9 a.m. and also delete 10 p.m. and substitute with 9 p.m.. Then on page one, line 28, delete 8 a.m. and substitute with 9 a.m. and then delete 10 p.m. in substitute with 9 p.m.. Um hmm. Councilman, I'm curious what amendment you're reading from. This is a new one. It is, Mr. President. And I will explain and I will explain in my comments. On the fly. Okay. Councilman Herndon, please explain the rationale for your amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. My amendment that I was originally was going to bring forward was shifting the hours from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.. When I had conversations with my council colleagues, I did not garner enough support to do that. So it didn't seem prudent just to do a vote on that to when I knew it wasn't going to be successful. So I don't and I'm not suggesting that I know that 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. will be successful. But as I was sitting here listening to the conversation and thinking back to why some of my colleagues had challenges with the 10 to 10 window, I thought this might be something that B strike that would strike a balance. So let me start with the rationale behind it. So right now, this is the option. If you want to purchase in the city and county of Denver, you have a8am window to 7 p.m. That is the current window right now. And whether you vote with this amendment, you will have 12 hours or whether you vote with the amendment that Councilman Black had, you will have 14 hours. So no matter what happens today, you will have the ability to purchase more marijuana at later hours within the city and county of Denver. But as we have had this conversation and I want to applaud Councilwoman Ortega for being a champion with pushing back about the speed of this bill and the fact that some of her amendments were considered. Because I do agree with that. I'm I'm not sure why. There has seemed to be a rush, in my opinion, to move this forward. But the question that I have asked is, well, what if the window was wrong? Why not shift it? But to do that, you need to know the data of how our current dispensaries are open. And that data we didn't even get in the marijuana committee. I had to reach out to excise and license and say, help me understand where the current hours are right now. And I appreciate excise and licensing that I sent it to all my council colleagues. We got data on just under 200 stores. There were some information that excise and license was unable to get, but they gave us the start times that they opened as well as the times that they closed. And as I was looking at this data from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., 99% of the stores were open. So they were they were diligently trying to maximize the tail end of that. There was one random store that closed at 530 for some reason, not sure why. But then as we turned and looked at the front end from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., approximately 20% of the stores are open, and that's it. And so I was reaching out to some people in the industry that aren't open at 8 a.m. and say, well, why aren't you open during this time period? And I don't pretend to say that they speak for the entire industry, but as they conveyed to me, well, there's not there's not a market at that time. And maybe some of those that are open at 8 a.m. are doing it because they need to capture that revenue because we don't have hours that go late enough in the evening. And so as I'm sitting there thinking, because as soon as you say, can we have more a community, a community that I represent that has had some adverse impacts that this industry has impacted on them? How do you make sure that they are a part of that conversation? Because I feel as if that community has not been heard. When we had the conversation about shall we have the pending applications go through? Community came out in droves. Globeville, Swansea came out. My fellow came out of the communities and said, We are saturated and we have not felt the we have had adverse impacts. And since that time where we move those pending applications forward, I thought it would be interesting to find out to the industry how if you better engage that community, which is why in committee I asked the question, could you give me an example of a good neighbor agreement that is in my district? Because that to me is a testament to, hey, we're reaching out to the community. Since then, I couldn't get one. And that's troubling to me. But I also I also believe that there is a case that there should be hours that are extended. So I have a community that I represent that does not feel that they have gained the benefit that people talk about and an industry that hasn't engage them. But you also have a very valid concern as you look at the data that says there's probably a case for later hours. So that's how I try to strike a balance. I thought a ten the ten would work, but some of my colleagues had concerns about that. The data that I talked about, 22% open at 8 a.m.. But guess what? 45% open at nine, and that would impact that 45%. So, okay, let's shift it forward. You have a 9 a.m. to a 9 p.m.. The industry gets there later, hours to additional hours on the back end. We're impacting less because now the only and I say only, but I do recognize that 22% that's open at 8 a.m. this will impact you. But I'm also trying to represent a community amount below a Northpark Hill and he's Colfax is my district was a city we would have more dispensaries than Aurora. Based off of the information that Councilwoman Ortega gave. And so I'm trying to strike that balance. And I believe that a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. is a way to do so. And I just, I, I am I'm, I am waiting for the liquor argument to come up and I just sit there and say, we're talking about marijuana hours and this body wants to create a committee of the whole to address liquor. I'm game. But the reality is we're talking about marijuana hours. And I want to find a way that we can strike a balance, because I don't believe the community has been heard during this conversation and I'm trying to be the voice of the community. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think I would disagree with Councilman Herndon about that. There wasn't enough time or that this decision was rushed. I recall that we had several committee meetings about times and we had public comment from the community and we had people around the table talking about this. As I recall, it began with the proposal that the stores would stay open till midnight and the committee decided at 10:00 was a compromise. Instead of midnight, I was very interested in the data that you relayed that there might not be a market for this or a market for that for this time or market for that time . It's another reason why I'm a little concerned that we are trying to micromanage our businesses ability to do their business and that they themselves would know what market they have and they would have staffing considerations and things like that. Edit We did have data about crime related to marijuana locations and as you and I know, we only have a couple along Colfax and the many neighbors there say the places where the marijuana stores are safer than other blocks along Colfax because they are guarded and they have video cameras. It's also true that we got information about crime. That crime happens in marijuana stores when they're closed, unlike perhaps the crime that happens. It's that liquor store that, again, you and I are familiar with and the bad actors in the liquor stores. Those happen very often. While the liquor stores open, crime in marijuana stores happen more likely when the marijuana stores are closed. So allowing them to be open a little bit longer seems to make sense from that point of view. I am in favor of the ten hour at 10:00 time and the original opening time and will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman Herndon. Councilman Herndon, thank you for bringing up the community input. When we had our conversation last year about locations and number of licenses, we did in fact, hear loud and clear for from hundreds of community members who felt very strongly about that. And we really tried to address it in that bill where we cap locations. In this particular case, we did not hear from even dozens of people. We had, as Councilwoman Sussman said, we had three public comments. We had one hearing last week for an hour. We didn't even fill the hour. Many of us reached out to our constituents. I reported back that many of my constituents didn't even know what time the stores closed. And we did hear from the inner neighborhood cooperation, which was in support of 10 p.m., and that is the compromise that we all agreed to. And I'm really proud of the work we did. I see Aubrey Le Viso shaking his head back there. He was one of the community representatives who supported the 10 p.m.. Had we heard a lot of opposition, we might not have agreed to that 10 p.m., but I, I didn't hear it. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I am pretty clear. I was at the committee meetings that weren't televised, actually, they all were. And, and prior I was always clear that I was in support of that shift that you had proposed, but that was there was always 10:00 to 10:00. And my constituents largely have coalesced around the 10:00, the idea of 10:00. Now, I know that I would have some constituents that would absolutely love me if I were to support a 9:00 hour. But that is really that is really sort of a very select few that are directly impacted by these businesses, which I feel for them . But, you know, I've always been supportive of that 10 to 10. This one was sort of a little bit by surprise. I would certainly support it. If you're trying to capture that 45, certainly support a 9 to 10 extension. But sort of I just want to be clear, since we hadn't talked about that, you know, it wasn't the hours shift, it was the hour shift to ten that I always was in support of. And so just I just want to be transparent in that. So because I don't want people to think I'm going against my word when I said I always supported a shift of the hours, but I was always coalescing around that 10:00 hour. So unless we amend back to 10:00, I suddenly find myself in a weird position where I can't necessarily support this. This amendment is now put on the floor. Sorry. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega, you were first. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak in support of this amendment and first start out by saying that. You're correct, Councilwoman Black, that there were not a lot of community residents who came. Having talked to many of them who came during the last process to share their concerns about the number of licenses which we did not cap. Some of us tried to do that, and the number of locations that are clearly targeted in predominantly lower income communities across this city. And, you know, this is especially so on the growth side. But even when you look at our demographics on the store side as well, and I talked to some of the residents who had come to previous meetings who felt like because we're we hear more from the industry folks than we do from residents, that their voice is far overshadowed and our decisions are made based primarily on the input that we have from the industry. And, you know, they feel like their input falls on deaf ears. So I just think it's important to ensure that we do have a balance of discussion. It's why I insisted, as well as some of my colleagues, that before we move the ordinance forward, which there was a push to move it out even before we had a chance to hear from exercise a license, to hear from the community so that it wasn't just the industry. And I get this was a request from the industry. It's something that we have, you know, moved through the process. We've had folks, you know, share their concerns and their thoughts about the whole thing. But the reality is, I don't believe as a whole and as a city, we continue to have a balanced conversation. When we talk about the fact that I made a request early on when this committee was created to have a discussion about THC levels. It has not been regulated at the state house. Whether we will do that or not, I don't know. But we should at least have a discussion about it because I have data from Denver Public Schools on the fact that we've got six schools right now that have school based clinics that are seeing children for cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, hallucinogenics and. Disorder, stimulant disorder, opioid disorder. So they are they are seeing kids in these schools. They want to expand this to include six more high schools where kids are consuming not only alcohol, but. They have such easy access to. Cannabis that, you know, we don't talk about the unintended consequences. That's a reality of what is happening in our community. You've heard me talk about the fact that we've got more young people living in our city that are on our 16th Street Mall. And we, some of us, get hounded by the downtown Denver partnership, wanting us to solve the problem of homelessness on the 16th Street Mall. Councilman Brooks and I have been to community meetings where even our residents who live downtown refer to these folks as urban travelers. They even say these are not our homeless. So, you know, there are some unintended consequences. That needs to be part of the conversation that we're having around the impact of marijuana. Are we operating in a way that most operators are responsible? I believe that to be true. But at the same time, does it mean that every time we get a request to push, the floodgates opened wider and wider and wider that we need to do that? I mean, God, we have 218 locations in Denver compared to our neighboring jurisdictions, you know, a total of 92 combined in our neighboring jurisdictions. You know, my suggestion was let's do a lottery like some of them have, and figure out how we allow them to, you know, decide who gets to expand. There wasn't an appetite for that. So we've got all 218 on the table that now get to expand as of next week when the ordinance goes into effect . And we're not going to treat pending applications any differently. We're not going to treat any of the bad actors any differently that are going through the the whole show cause process. And I just think as a city, we need to be a lot more conscientious about the unintended consequences and especially about the impact on our kids. And I'm looking forward to the meeting that we have where we can have Denver Health and Children's Hospital and some of the other entities that are dealing with kids, especially ending up in emergency rooms who are, you know, consuming edibles or smoking pot because the THC level is so strong in the product. So I'm going to stop at that. But I'm going to be voting for this amendment tonight. Right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. We have too much marijuana in the community. We have too much alcohol in the community. We have too much opioids in the community. But I'm a believer that we've learned the lesson that prohibition does not work. There are a whole lot of other things I think we need to be doing to address the addiction and substance abuse crisis we have in this country. I don't believe monkeying with the hours a little bit is going to do that one way or the other. If we set the hours tonight, as this bill suggests, at 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. as Councilman Herndon's information that he was kind enough to pass on shows us we're not going to have 200 and some dispensaries operating from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. They're profit making businesses. They're going to set their hours as is appropriate as they best see that their customer base is asking for. And that's that's been my position all the way along here. I want to make it reasonably convenient for consumers to if they work one shift, they've got a few hours into the evening that they can pick up their product. If they work another, they can go in the early morning and pick that up. I don't think there's a person on city council that isn't I don't think there's one person on this council more concerned about our children than another. The. One of the main benefits that I see of legalizing marijuana for recreational use is the hit we've made on the black market. And all the information I'm looking at tells me that we're doing a pretty good job of making a dent on the black market. So to. Like I say, to to open the door. From for more black market infiltration doesn't make sense to me. I support those and have for for a while who are concerned about the potency of the product. I hope we can take a good look at that. And I also last thing I'd like to do, and I do want to thank Councilwoman Black when we had the presentation. From the industry on the case for extended hours. I felt that that was a little unbalanced and I asked the councilwoman, could we have another session and give the other side an opportunity to present their case and which which we had. And I think we've. I think we've heard the information from the industry we need to hear. I think the the the public has had the opportunity to weigh in. I am amazed at how few contacts I've had. On both sides of the issue. I will say I have not received one call. I mean, before this all came up in committee of someone saying, hey, I can't can't get my weed. You know, would. Would you extend the hours and get one call? I've had. A few people in the community contacted me directly to weigh in about the hours. So. So what I've got to say. I'll be voting for the the original bill of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. See you back in the queue. Yeah, mostly because my comments prior were sort of pretty absolute. And I'm just going to say that actually I'm going to do what I just did on the prior two amendments and pass until the end. And I just want to be clear that if I end up becoming the seventh and deciding vote because of that, I actually will support Councilman Herndon's amendment on this idea, because what few people know is that my own notes on at the marijuana meetings was that I support later hours, 11:00, but my constituents were very clear that that was a bridge too far. That said, you know, I don't mind taking a cautious approach to 9:00 if that's where six and six of my colleagues end up, because I still have a lot of question marks on the consumption side. We haven't formalized those rules yet. We haven't adopted them. And so, once again, it would if we did have that reduction in hours, knowing full well that there's my support for 10:00, other support for 10:00, it gives us that latitude to sort of expand, you know, again, but mostly after the consumption, we see how consumption plays itself out because to Councilman Cashman's comments, I'm not a believer in prohibition myself. So that's no. I just wanted to explain why, if that transpires, why I went from being essentially a no vote yes vote things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Hearn, do you mind if we go to Councilman Gilmore? Absolutely, Mr. President. Thank you, President Brooks. I so I've been talking with the community that I represent in the the portion of Montebello that I represent and Green Valley Ranch. And it was really interesting, you know, in talking with my community cabinet, asking them what their thoughts were. There were very few of them who were concerned with the opening hours. It was more the the, you know, how long folks would be able to be open. And, you know, we talked about the 10 p.m. of course, we talked about the midnight. And it was a consensus that 10 p.m. made good sense just for for their feelings and where they thought it could go. And it did come up around having areas that are activated later into the evening. I Councilman Herndon, you know, drive home on Nome Street right by the post office. And so I drive by a cultivation and a retail and medical site right there. And it's really dark at 830 when I'm driving home and having a place activated longer. Hopefully would make it safer and impact that gray market. Impact folks trying to access marijuana illegally versus doing so legally. And then we get the tax revenue as a city for it. And so that was a big conversation with the group of community members that I engaged and I share. Councilman Cashman's sediments I'm I was really surprised about the the lack of outcry from either side about the hours of operation. And I do share councilman Herndon's want to have more community engagement with the businesses. And I have to say my first experience with a retail or a medical site along Tower Road, they agreed to every single component of a good neighbor agreement that we brought forward and we engage the community. And so I think there are some really good examples out there of businesses who are trying to operate as a business and that where we're treating them as a business, allowing them to set their their opening time. Makes it easier to manage personnel. I think there's a lot of logical reasons for it. And so, you know, I was under the assumption, Councilman, that you were going to do a 10 p.m. to 10 p.m. I think we were all surprised that that it was 9 p.m. to 9 p.m.. And I guess I just need to ask if you would be. Willing or interested to look an amendment that would possibly be. 9 a.m. to. 10 p.m.. To to open that up for folks so that these areas, especially in the industrial side of the Montebello community, are truly activated later in the evening so that those businesses aren't targets after hours for folks trying to break into. And then also addressing that gray market piece. So I just respectfully ask if you might consider that and then would love to partner with you more as these licenses in Montebello come up for renewal that we're really looking at, asking these businesses to consider good neighbor agreements going forward so that truly the communities voice in Montebello can be heard through the Good Neighbor Agreement and that they really have some teeth within those licenses to make sure that folks are acting within compliance for this. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilwoman Kim, I really appreciate your comments. And this is this is the challenge that we have, Mr. President, because the idea of a ship wasn't even brought up in committee. There wasn't even a time to have the conversation, because if we simply said, well, there's an idea for a shift or even consider Councilwoman Ortega's for one one committee meeting to talk about it, we could have done that. Now, I am certainly my my purpose in this amendment is to ensure that the community has felt heard in this. And then 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. to me does not say that simply because the industry comes with midnight and we say ten doesn't mean the community has had a voice in that. And it's interesting, I my offices in my bell and my churches in Mount Belo, I mean, my bell, my staff, we volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club. So we haven't just been talking about marijuana this year when the hours conversations come up. We've been talking marijuana since it since it was passed. And what we have done is we have put this in targeted communities and a target the community that I represent. And it's interesting that we hear the conversation about we're not restricting, we're not doing that. Whether you support this amendment or the next one, there are additional hours. I would absolutely entertain a 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. But at the same point, we I don't want to do that if I just know where I don't want to waste more councilmembers time because we haven't heard from everybody. So it would be great if we could say this gets pushed back to June or July, but it doesn't seem as if the sponsor of that is willing to do that. So I would certainly make an amendment, Mr. President, to 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. I don't believe that will get me there. And as I I know, Councilman Espinosa, because we had originally said ten and I was trying to find a way to strike a balance. But I'm I'm happy to do that. But I want to be respectful of people's time as well. So I'm kind of torn. It would be nice if we could just simply say we'll postpone final and final consideration for a month so that we could have a conversation. I know this is we are having a marijuana committee meeting May 1st. I know Councilman Flynn is bringing something forward. So would there be a huge harm in having that conversation? I will I will look towards Councilman Black to see if that would be something she would reconsider. Councilwoman Black. I. I don't think we should postpone it. I you did bring up that shift in hours several times at at meetings. And I know you've talked to everyone about it. And again, I don't think any of us have heard from the community that they would like them to open later. That hasn't been an issue. I feel like I responded to people's requests to hear from different groups. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for acknowledging that. I asked. People want to hear from the opposition. I asked what opposition you wanted to hear from, and I brought those people to the meeting. We've heard from community members that in our neighborhood cooperation supported 10 p.m.. Margie Valdez has spoken four times. Gabriela Viso, community representative, has spoken. We did not hear that outpouring of opposition as we did in last year's conversation we had about locations and licenses. I think we should move forward tonight and we can continue the conversation. We do have meetings scheduled for the next few months, but we can switch them around and, you know, have new conversations and and amend this bill down the road. Thank you. Councilwoman Black Espinosa, I see you in, but I'm not going to go. Councilman. Councilman Herndon. Yes, Mr. President. If Councilman Black is is not going to allow that, may I amend my amendment to go from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. and we'll just vote on that? Is that with your. Yup. Your second increase? Okay. I'm happy to reread it. Mr. Broadwell. Fine. Councilman. Mr. Braswell He just needs a reread and we can we can amend right now on the floor his prior amendment. Okay. So I wrote this down. I'll make sure that I get this right. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 17 0324 in the Pauline following particulars on page one lines 19 through 20, delete 8 a.m. and substitute with 9 a.m. and then on page one, line 28, delete 8 a.m. and substitute 9 a.m.. So I'm just changing the start time, 9 a.m. and a no need to state the reasons why again. Okay, Councilwoman Sussman. Do we have a second? Just. Yeah. Hee. He. We got a second from Ortega. So this is comments and questions. Okay. I want to just reiterate, first of all, I think Castle Gilmore for understanding to the activation streets is something that it was is important to Colfax, too. But I just want to say that making legislation like this on the fly is disconcerting. It isn't deliberate. It doesn't provide enough time to weigh all the considerations. It's much more vulnerable to unintended consequences. And it seems irresponsible that we're having back and forth because this one isn't going to work and a vote we're going to change it. Right now, we haven't had any input on the change of the beginning hours of these businesses. And we we don't have really a good process for asking what this means. And I'm not sure that opening hours are going to have any effect whatsoever on the good or bad behavior of a of a marijuana store. I can't imagine what the effect is. So I'm just very disconcerted that we're doing legislation on the fly. Thank you, Councilman. Woman Sussman. Councilman Herndon. Mr. Fred, I was going to say, then let's postpone. If we're concerned about this, I'm not sure why the May 1st aid is such a such a concrete date. There are conversations that haven't been had a month I don't believe would make a difference. But if that's our argument about we're rushing on the fly, then let's bring it back to committee and have a conversation. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Sussman. The decision to make it 10:00 was not made on the fly. What I'm saying is the change that is being requested is one that is being made on the fly. But the one to help to keep it open at ten was part of several committee meetings and several public comment periods and several input from neighborhoods. Okay. This has been moved in, seconded the last motion that Councilman Herndon read. And we are voting on that motion to amend. Madam Secretary, roll call. Is this the 9 to 10? I just want to make sure I got it right. All right. Name two. Okay. Herndon High. Cashman. No. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. No. Black? No. Clark, no. Espinosa, I. Flynn. No. Gilmore, I. Mr. President. No. Herndon's motion to amend Council Bill 324 fails. Councilman Hurt. Councilman. Councilwoman Arteaga didn't vote in the system. Sorry. Councilman Ortega. Okay. Thank you. Mr. President. I have an amendment. It's let's let's deal with this issue right now, Madam Secretary. The bill dies six. The amendment dies six. Seven, correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. The motion fails before we ask for a motion to pass this amendment. We have an amendment amendment on the floor by Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Espinosa. You're going to have to read it, but you need a second. You just made of. You sound okay. Let me make my amendment first. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 17 03430324 and the following particulars on page one line 30 delete May 1st in substitute June 21st. So. So it's okay. So sorry. It's been moved on often, Councilman Ortega. Okay. It's been moved by Councilman Espinosa. Signature by Councilmember Tiger. And essentially we are delaying the bill. Is that correct? Make a motion. Yeah, that's correct. I think there's merit to the disciplinary action amendment that should be sort of metered out and moving to the longest day for longer hours. And things make sense. And it gets around the notion that we are doing legislation on the fly. Okay. David. One quick technicality here as you continue to debate this amendment. Listen carefully. If this amendment is adopted, you will not be able to act on final adoption of the bill tonight. You will have to postpone final adoption of the bill till next week because the published description indicated that it was going to have a May 1st effective date based upon the amendment that occurred last week. Right. So so whenever a floor amendment changes something in the description, it requires it to be republished. So you'll have a combination of delaying the adoption of the bill and delaying the effective date. If you approve the amendment. Okay. Does it matter that they picked a Wednesday date, June 21st? Is that. So what's the question. Now is when it goes in effect. It's May 1st as a monday and June 21st as a Wednesday. It matter. Yeah. I'm sorry. I understood the motion to be to delay the effective date of the bill, not the final adoption of the bill. The effective date to replace the current one in the bill, which is May 1st. So it could be it can be effective 1a1 can be. Effective any day. Okay. So we're going to get this going. Thank you for the rationale. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman. I am confused about what is being amended and what Bill is on the floor. Can somebody please tell me, is the amendment only about the effective date or is do do we have the original one on the floor to push it forward that is an amended. It after this. Yeah. Amended because the amendments. Lost we had yeah. The amendments tonight the three amendments tonight lost. Right. We amended the bill last week. So it's actually council bill 3 to 4 as amended. Oh I see. Last week. Yes, it's on the floor but we. Now have another amendment on the fly to change the effective date. Yeah. Um. Yeah. So have Councilwoman Sussman. I just think this is not a good way to run a legislative action or body. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, is there any other comments? Okay. Uh. It's been moved in second it and this is. There since there needs to be a. There's a second from Ortega. Okay. I'll put it in. No, it's not in there. Right. Councilman Ortega. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Um. Oh. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to ask Councilman Espinosa the the purpose of the delay is to take it back to committee and to do. To debate what? Yeah. So I think that would then come unfortunately next week is to then push this back to committee so that we can discuss essentially the amendments that are that have traction or potentially have traction, particularly the disciplinary action legislation meaning amendment currently. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. You know, I'll just say that Councilman Cashman said when we were in March, when we looked at the hours of operation, he said, you know what, we need to get the proponents in here and the opponents to our extension. And when he did that, we waited, I believe it was two weeks. I believe you wait two weeks and get the information out. I know I talked to my constituents, particularly the ones who are most sensitive to this, and the response was pretty underwhelming. Matter of fact, the people we got to speak were individuals who didn't even who were opponents, who didn't even live in the city and county of Denver. And so I feel as if we are beginning to waste a little time. There's nothing we're going to accomplish by going back to. The committee to have a discussion on 30 minutes here or an hour there. So this is just my rationale to say let's, you know, move to oppose this motion, move this bill forward. And if there are real concerns and disciplinary issues, which I believe that there are, let's deal with them in committee and ask the chairperson to schedule them. That's that's just my rationale. Okay. Now, we got a lot more people in here. Okay. Let's go with. Sussman You already got in. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of comments. I neglected to mention that we also heard from Sabeco said several meetings, which is another community organization. In regarding the disciplinary issues, I would be more than happy to have XYZ and licensed come to a committee meeting and and educate us on these show cause hearings they have and as Councilman Brooks said, if we need to then further amend this to address that, we can certainly do that. But they already have a process in place and businesses can have their licenses revoked. They currently have that that process in place. But I'm happy to schedule a conversation about that at a committee meeting. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Black Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Look, I am in our deliberations tonight. I think it. I think it's absolutely fair to have these questions answered. And, you know, I see folks in the dining room in the night. I see folks in the council chambers regularly who have a bill up. And I'm looking at them. I'm like, you know, your bill is not controversial. You know, nobody's going to ask. I mean, I love how dedicated there are, but I'm like, nobody's going to call your bill out. And it's just pretty small and pretty solid. But they're there anyway. They're there just in case there are questions. And I you know, I know that. I know I don't want this to be an attack on exercise and license. I'm sure that if they knew how much we were talking about them, they'd show up lickety split. I don't think that memo got to them. And but I also don't think. We should wait another month or two months, I think. Look, I know we've deliberated in committee. I know we've deliberated here. And I. Absolutely. Just for the record, and I with all due respect, this is how every ounce of legislative legislation is sausage making . And it can happen here or it can happen in committee. I've seen bills amended on the floor and they've ended up. Good pieces of legislation. I've seen a couple of my colleagues down here do it and they do it well. It's just. It's what we do. It's our job. It's in our job description. And it is a power and a right that we have. So I don't want us to to knock the process. I think we have that that that power. And through charter and through our rules. Let me just be clear about that. But I also look I support looking into the hours I. Look, I'm. I'm down for compromise. I'm down to see a. A tinker to a bill. To a regulation. Basically a regulatory framework that is solid. People are watching Denver as we legislate. There are cities who haven't got there and we're in the microscope. On the good in a good way. And I want us to do this the right way. Now, do I believe that 2 hours would make a big impact? I think it depends on the end. We've heard numbers, and I really appreciate the the homework and everything that was done to really show that a majority of that business is at night or in the evenings. I believe that. However, I think I don't think we need to delay another two months. I think we can. I would love to get answers in between now and next week. I would love to see movement on that. I think I didn't go two weeks, but a month is two months is. It's kind of far out there. So no disrespect to anybody that said anything. I just think it's a long way to go. It just was just one. I mean, for just a few questions that I think could be answered. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I'll just say that, you know, whoever is proposing a bill, this is this is a city council sponsored bill, and it's incumbent upon them to make sure everyone is here. This is our bill. This is not an executive office bill. And so while some folks show up, sometimes we've got to make sure for our bills that we have somebody here for further explanation. Did we I'm sorry. Did we? Was there communication sent for access and license to be here tonight? I think you're going to have to ask the bill proposers. The amendment proposal is in the bill proposal. Because it would say something if there was communication. There's nobody here. That's a big deal. That's that's a that's a no no. Yeah. But if there. We just didn't reach out then. Yeah. Okay. Let's see here. Councilman Herndon, I. Think, Mr. President, as I said again when I was trying to the purpose for my amendment, it was because I don't believe that the community has had a voice in this. And I know I know people will disagree with that. And I'm not one to debate that. But if we can have a mechanism in place, because up until this point, because I asked the question, give me a good neighborhood agreement in my district. Out of all the dispensaries that I have in Montebello, Northpark Hill, East Colfax, give me one. And they couldn't. Don't tell me that you're a good community steward. It's not as if I'm not Glendale, where I've got one or Edgewater with six. Give me one example. So in my eyes, the industry has not been a good steward, so I would be okay delaying this so that we can have a conversation about why this industry hasn't engaged these saturated communities. And what can we as a council do to ensure that they do that? I would be fine with that. And I think that that's I don't think that that's such a difficult ask to make sure that the community, the saturated communities, because we didn't say to the industry, you could go anywhere . We said you could go to these particular neighborhoods. And so these particular neighborhoods have been grossly impacted. And how do we make sure that they feel heard? And I'm I would love for Councilwoman Gilmore to come to committee and use the tools that she that utilized that worked in Green Valley ranch because I would love for that to happen and part of my district. So I am comfortable with the delay for that very reason because if people ask the question, what can we talk about? How about we talk about finding ways to ensure that the industry engages the community that they're impacting? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman. No. Real quick. Just clarification. What we're talking about is delay in the bill to delay in the bill, and that doesn't affect bringing back amendments to address the disciplinary action that we need to do. That doesn't affect that at all. We can still bring back amendments later on to do that, whether we change that, the delay, the implementation date or not. Is that correct. Councilman? I think, you know, generally you can bring an amendment back to any bill that we have, what Councilman Ortega intends, what I'm taking out. Let me take yours out of your mouth. But I believe she was saying that if this passes today, we can't react retroactively, go back and adjust those times for those applications with disciplinary issues. Well well, I think that I was thinking that the time was a separate issue from the district reaction to issues. So, I mean, okay, you know, I was thinking that the primary concern tonight was the hours. That's right. So if you vote on that, then we can still bring back amendments to address the important issues that she addressed the disciplinary action. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. An additional clarification. The motion is to change the effective date of the new hours. Is that correct? To June 21st instead of May 1st. But there is not a motion to postpone final consideration. So this would come up again on final next Monday. That doesn't give this time to come back to committee because we don't have a marijuana committee. We have one next week. So we would have to have an extensive discussion right before this meeting next week and we'd have to have all the data by then. I just wanted to remind folks of that. Okay. Thank you, sir. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah. Yeah, I would I would think that if for some reason this this motion passes, I think we would immediately follow up with a motion to postpone that vote on final consideration, sir. All right. The I'm going to start calling these motions and amendments by everyone's last name. So the Espinosa Amendment are motion on the floor to postpone to an effective date of June 24th has been moved and seconded. But I'm secretary roll call. 21/21. What I say June 21st. June 21st is what it meant. Espinosa Hi. Flynn No. Gilmore No. Herndon. Cashman, no. Canet. Lopez No new? No. Ortega. Susman No. Clark, no. Clark, no. Mr. President. No. Please call the voting and announce the results. Make sure you remember it. I think we got him. Got it. All three eyes. Ten nays. Three eyes, tin nays. The Espinosa Amendment to postpone to the 21st June 21st has failed. Councilman Herndon will need a motion to pass. Council Bill 324 as amended. Mr. President, I, I did do that initially, a long time ago. And since there were no amendments to that, it should just still be. It's still on the floor. Correct, Madam Secretary? Yes, we can do that. Yes. So, Madam Secretary, can we just vote on Council Bill 324 as amendment? Yes. It's been moved and seconded. But I'm sick. As amended. We have a. Uh. We have to comments. Councilman Herndon. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I will. I will. I will not be supporting this bill. And as Councilwoman Ortega said eloquently last week, the industry had been very successful in Denver. And the comments that people have said imply that by proposing an amendment that you were anti industry, that's actually not the case at all. I'm just if I have to prove if I have to side with an anti or a pro, I just say it is pro community. And as we have had these conversations, I once again stress that I don't believe the industry has been as good of a steward as they could be. And I recognize that there are certainly good players. I don't want to blanket it. But once again, where are the good neighborhood agreements? Where are the ways that we are helping communities feel feel good about? And that's probably a bad way to say it. But from what I've heard in my district, they have been adversely impacted and I have not seen how the industry is trying to help mitigate that. And if the industry wants to be, I think they have the ability to do much more than they're doing right now and I would like to see that. And so currently, I cannot support the bill that is written. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. I may blow a few minds here, but as Councilwoman Black knows, ever since we've gone from midnight to 10:00, I have been in support of this bill as it is. And so I just wanted to to to let everyone know that I will be voting in favor despite everything that has transpired tonight . But the beauty the beauty of this body and the reason why I respect the different and Meredith points of view that have resulted in other amendments is because they have the potential to improve the legislation. So we heard that there might be more time, which was why I offered the amendment that I did. I have no fear of that. I mean, the fact that we picked May 1st is just because that's when we decided to conclude it. So but that said, I've always been in favor of the 10 hours extension to 10:00, so I will be voting in favor of things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. No one is surprised. Okay. Let's see. I'm sorry, because our machine is not getting an order. Councilwoman Black was next. Thank you, Mr. President. So I had some comments for tonight, and now they really don't apply after this lively discussion, but they kind of do. So last week, Councilman Brooks had a great little speech about policy versus politics. And if it was just about policy, I think we would align with the state laws. And so, you know, our state allows for marijuana stores to stay open till midnight. So when people say it's the industry pushing it, well, that's actually our state law, but it is politics and we are all up here. The funny thing is, as I've written down all the comments people have said, because I want to bring all of these topics to our committee meeting, I would love to have a meeting on community engagement, Councilman Herndon and good neighbor agreements and have a conversation with how these businesses can be better neighbors. Love to have a conversation about disciplinary action and show cause hearings. Councilwoman Ortega I do have a meeting scheduled on THC. But the funny thing is, with the exception of maybe Councilman Herndon, no one is actually opposed to 10 p.m. so despite all of this conversation we've had, none of it has actually been about 10 p.m.. So I'm I'm pleased with the 10 p.m.. It was a compromise. The bill had originally started with midnight. We did have three two hour meetings and we had three public comments and a hearing last week. I responded to the requests that everyone made and I think everyone for their time and their interest. I think excise and licenses, I think the police for their time all of them, any community members who participated I NC and people in the industry. I'm really proud of the dialog we all had and the compromise compromise we made. And I will be supporting the bill tonight. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I know that we've been we've been at this for a while. You know, I think the 10 p.m. was a good compromise. It is baby steps. And, you know, that's what's really worked in Denver as we take the time to really to really think things through. Right. And in part, because of the heartache that we have and that we still got work to do and we do. There are a lot of tinkering. There's a lot of tinkering that we have to do with with regulation of marijuana. There just is. You know, I had an interview. I had a guy who interviewed me and we were first regulating it. He's from Sweden. I mean, we had Germany, Latin America, Sweden. The one topic I mean, I stand for a lot of things, a lot of my favorite policies and issues that I like. And the one thing they all want to talk to me about and answer the phone is like, I know we want to talk about we. My damn. Can you? There are other cool things going on. We want to talk about marijuana regulation. So I take the call. Don't have to. It's not my committee, but I take the call and defend our policies whether I voted for them or not. Because all in all, it's the right way to move forward. And here's the thing. I don't the one thing that really turned me in is I'm very and paying attention to it is criminal activity. As we operate and as we regulate. You know, I always walked in very skeptical and I as I should be, I'm from the west side and we have more liquor stores and you can shake a stick. And we have a lot of problematic liquor stores. We have a overabundance of access to things like this. Right. You won't find a Whole Foods or a cute Trader Joe's or anything like that, even though I've asked people to come and say, Hey, come on, once you kind of take a look at some of these spots out on the West Side, we don't have those other uses. You know, I love The Green Mile on Broadway because there's other uses. You know, saturation is different there than it is in in parts of my district. And so we really have to look at things in its entirety. And it absolutely is. You look at home values, you look at sidewalks, you look at everything else in some of these other either complete or. They're more complete. You have other choices and it's access. So I wanted to make I want to make sure that any impact that we have doesn't impact that in a in a horrible way or in a negative way. And when I pay attention to crime and I paint it to crime stats, lo and behold. There's really nothing going around around these dispensaries in comparison to some of these other uses. It's not that we shouldn't keep our eye off the ball. But at least that's one less worry I have, and I've been happy to be able to say, okay, let's move to 10:00. And so I do support this bill. I think this is something that would help the industry, help customer base. And it really does make sense. It really does make sense. I think the black market doesn't kick in at eight in the morning, especially marijuana. Very many people are up around that time. But it is the after hours, right? I was supposed to be fired anyway, but I support the bill moving forward. Good work. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I think we're past funny now. Okay. Let's go to Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. So essentially right now, we're talking about a difference of eight versus 9 a.m.. And so with that morning hours difference, I will be voting in favor of the bill as amended. But I think that authentic community engagement is so important, instead of just providing maybe $1,000 contribution to a community event or putting a monetary donation forward versus really engaging with the surrounding community and asking, how can we be a better neighbor? I was one of the co-founders of a registered neighborhood organization when our mayor was our city councilperson below 2020 and never had any marijuana industry. Folks reaching out to us, asking to come, asking to find out when the meetings were, how they could get involved. And, you know, so so that just has not really existed in communities of color, honestly. And so I look forward to at upcoming committee meetings having the conversation about really how does the Boys and Girls Club in the Montebello community have our young people sharing with the marijuana industry? How have you impacted their lives? Have you impacted their family's lives? How can you be a better neighbor? How can you be authentic in your community engagement? And that it's not just necessarily a check, but it's really being there and being accessible. And so, you know, upon renewal, educating the community to request a hearing and I wanted to throw out for those who are listening to this debate tonight, this is a microcosm of our community. It's a microcosm of Denver. And I'm glad that it wasn't just a rubber stamp. We all got it through. And there it is because it's messy and I'm glad that this is messy. And so I want to throw out to folks who are listening that the inner neighborhood cooperation, the ANC, they're going to host Denver's first Marijuana Citizens Academy, and it's May 8th and May 22nd. And I'm not quite sure how we can get this information out, but if all of us as council folks, would would agree to share it to our constituents, because it's a complex topic. And the more that we can educate our community around how their voices can be heard, I think it just makes our neighborhoods and our constituents that much stronger because they know how the system works. And so I just wanted to share share those thoughts and thank you. President Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is dealing with expanded hours, which, in light of the data for the cities that surround us that allow marijuana sales, makes sense. This is a move for the customers, for the clientele of the marijuana stores. And to use this as a vehicle to try to address other legitimate I underline legitimate concerns that councilmembers Ortega and Herndon have raised. I think this is just the wrong vehicle to to try to attach. Other issues to this. I would like to see them come to the marijuana committee and just meet them head on. For instance, we have last year we amended the retail marijuana code to require community engagement plans not only for new licenses, but for renewals. And if that's not being done, then that's a problem we need to address in committee. Is that being done? And, Councilwoman Black, I like to see that addressed in the committee. I don't see the same provision in the medical code, but when a medical center comes up for renewal, should they also be submitting a community engagement plan ? They do that on renewal, not just on new applications. I would, but as far as extending the hours of the 13 jurisdictions around us that have medical or recreational sales, actually 12 excluding us. 11 of them, 11 of those 12 have closing times after our 7:00. So I think it only makes sense to deal with this in isolation and then directly attack those other issues head on in our committee. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. We have no more comments for this bill. And I think it's a I think it is important to to say and someone did say, but I want to underline it again, the state has approved hours of operation to midnight. And so I don't know many. Businesses or organizations where the state grants a privilege. And we come and tinker with it. And so with this bill, we did, and not with a lot of great evidence either. But, you know, folks felt like there was a compromise on the 10 p.m.. So we went to that support. But I got to tell you, I mean, my issues in District nine are around liquor stores. They're around liquor stores that do not have any security. So we can go and handle that if we'd like to. Can I go to your committee, too? And I especially do not like lines of people at A.T.M. in my liquor stores. So that's why from the beginning, I've been supportive of the of whatever the state requirement was. And the people in my community know that because that's a just a policy consideration for me. That being said, the will of this council is 10 p.m. and see, you know, support the city and and I'm glad to support it. Ten. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. No. Cashman. Hi. Kennedy. Lopez. I knew Ortega. No. Sussman. Hi. Mr. President. I. Please. Cause of our income. The results. Lebanese. Two days. 11 eyes, two nays. Council Bill 324 as amended passes. This concludes all items to be called out. All other bills for introduction of order published were now ready for the Bloc votes on resolutions and bills and final consideration countermeasures. Remember, this is your last opportunity for consent or block vote and will need to vote I. Otherwise, it's your last chance for a separate vote. Councilman Herndon, where you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on a final consideration for final passage on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. I believe all of these are series of 2017 395 341 364 383 384 390 3405471 ten 381. All right. It's been moved in saying it. Did you say 349 for second one? Did I say I think you did. Okay. Did you? I thought I read them. Spread on scrolling back up. Yeah. Yeah, he said it. Okay. He said, all right. It's the second, second term. My recall. Black. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I feel more. I've heard in Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman I. Mr. President, I. Please Kosovo renounce results 1212 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be required public hearing. Yes, we have a public hearing tonight on Council Bill 311 proven text amendment for the Denver Zoning Code comprised of multiple substantive clarifications of usability changes across the entire entirety