A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Axon Enterprise, Inc., f/k/a Taser International, Inc., to extend the term, increase the maximum contract amount and add additional terms and conditions for body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments. Amends a contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc., formerly known as Taser International, Inc., by adding $15,996,615.10 for a new total of $22,097,650.10 and five years for a new end date of 12-15-25 to purchase body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments (202054764). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-18-20. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember CdeBaca called out this resolution at the 11-30-20 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to Monday, 12-7-20.
Thank you, Madam President. I have a few outstanding questions and a couple that will reiterate from the safety committee. Is there anybody on the call who can answer questions on this contract? Mm hmm. We have, I believe, Laura Walker and Chief Payton. Got it. We did some digging after safety committee and are concerned about the use of the body cameras and when they will be turning on. And I'm wondering when there will be opportunity, if this is passed tonight for the public and for city council members to weigh in on how the new equipment is utilized and recorded and made available. All right. Thank you for that question. We'll go ahead and let either Laura or Chief Payson chime in. Councilwoman, thanks for the question. There's a policy that was done with community input on release of body cam footage so the upgraded cameras would follow the same policy. Will you be reopening that policy after this summer's events? We continuously look at policies and procedures for improvement, and we would do that with all policies that dictate performance of officers. What? Can you make a commitment that you will be responsive to? The report out from the Independent Monitor's office in a couple of weeks regarding body cameras and the policies surrounding the Tasers. So I'm sure if tasers are addressed in the monitors report. But we are looking forward to that report we have signed as well as the executive director of Public Safety requesting this. We consider ourselves a learning organization and we look forward to what the monitors report has and what we can improve upon. Great Segway research doesn't really show us that body cams curtail violence and they don't really change officer behavior. And so I'm wondering how DPD is planning to use the body cam footage to identify ingrained police behavior and where training has failed? Well, the purpose of the body cam is about accountability. You can identify the officers performance. Overwhelmingly, the body cam footage not only in Denver but across the country has led to meaningful change, has led to meaningful correcting behavior, as well as holding individuals accountable for their own actions. And that's what we would expect to see moving forward. And Denver doesn't have a good policy, a uniform policy that lets the public know when video footage will be available or released. And so now I'm wondering when we, as the public and members of council can expect such a policy to be crafted by DPD rather than going with a case by case basis decision making that we've been going with. So again, you know, this original policy was crafted with input from the community. There's also additional layers with SB 217 that we are in compliance with and will be in compliance with in the future. We're talking about this camera compared to the last camera. We believe that the policies that are in effect give that level of transparency, particularly with the Office of Independent Monitor, who has access and reviews, body would body worn camera footage on a regular basis. And the transparency is a huge gap that we have here in Denver. And I'm wondering, when you became chief, we were expecting a report detailing when an officer points a firearm at someone. And I imagine that this is data that's captured on the excessive amount of body cam footage that we must have stored somewhere. But no report has been released. And so I'm wondering when the public can expect that data and that report. Great question. And actually a great segway into how we have worked with our community. Pointing a firearm and documenting that as part of comprehensive reporting is how we worked with the Use of Force Committee on or in June of 2020. We amended our policy and have begun collecting that data as we announced at that time frame. And just like we do with all use of force data, again, part of that that use of force, a committee of diverse community members from all across our city helped us craft. We report out on that on or before February 1st of the following year. So all of that data, just like you can go back and look at 2019 data or 2018 data, it is prominently posted. And that was a suggestion from the use of force committee from a committee member that we have followed through with. And I do want to point out that and give credit to our community, because the use of force policy done in conjunction with our community is as strong and as progressive as any in the nation, and it is fully complies with the eight Can't Wait, which includes what you're asking for in the comprehensive reporting. We're definitely past eight. Can't wait as a general public where we're eight to the abolition now. But I am curious about two things. Where in the escalation of force do tasers fit with respect to pepper balls and the tear gas? So again, that policy is online, it's open. You describe it. Is. As far as the use of force policy that is available online, that was designed in conjunction with our community, talks about usage with defensive resistance, active aggression and aggravated active aggression for each. Do we use Tasers first or do we use pepper balls and tear gas first? There is not a used one before another. Our goal in all of this and is clearly stated in the policy manual, not only in the use of force section, but throughout is the goal is verbal de-escalation is to get voluntary compliance before having to use any type of force. The less force used is good for everybody. Would love to get to a position where no force is used. That's good for our community and it's good for our officers. Does every officer read that policy manual? Yes. And we have a a system, an electronic system that requires signoff upon completion. How many pages is it? The use of force policy manual? Yep. I don't have the exact number of pages. So when I download it, it's over 800 pages. And when I've asked different officers about different sections in that policy manual, it doesn't seem. Like it is something that every officer reads from cover to cover. And so beyond the sign off that they've read it, what other kind of quiz or testing is involved to make sure that they've read it and know the content within it? So there is the academy that has tests, both quizzes and major tests that are associated with the policy manual. There are all updates are pushed out electronically to indicate adherence and knowledge of the particular policy. Any time something has changed, for example, the changes that were made with regards to your initial question on comprehensive reporting that goes out and each officer or supervisor is required to then read that and then sign off acknowledging that they know and understand the changes. I'm very concerned with just the signoff and not the the content knowledge. That seems to be the priority. I'm wondering also if this contract has any kind of clause in it that does not allow this company to. Transfer over data if it is purchased by another company. How we monitor and protect people's data. We do not allow in our contracts for folks to just to sell data to a third party. That's not exactly what I'm talking about. Say, for example, we collect all of this data. We have a full database of body cam footage, and then one day Palantir buys Axn. They buy the the data service. They buy all of the footage. Even though it belongs to us, they have access to it. I didn't see anything in our contract that would trigger. A renegotiation of the contract if the company is purchased or a termination of the contract. That would be a city attorney question. Is there a city attorney on the line to speak to that? And so, I mean, this is Steve Horn with the Denver City Attorney's Office. And my recollection of reading the contract is, of course, as you mentioned, the data belongs to the city. And as with all of our contracts, we can terminate at any point in time. The language is clear that it belongs, that the data belongs to the city. And so what I think you're describing is a scenario where if Axon were to be acquired by another company in that company attempted to access the city's data, that would be a breach on their part. And we have a commitment from the city not to collaborate and share data with entities like ICE. Correct. I believe that we have an ordinance not to provide certain information concerning citizens in the city. And so I'm not sure if if you're where that intersects with this contract. I want certain verification that this contract, this footage is protected under that ordinance and will not be shared with any outside entities. Councilwoman. That's something I'd need to come back with. Is it? Thank you. Council President. Is it possible to delay this until we have an answer on that? We could most likely delay it to a date certain, if you'd. I know Councilman Hines had his hand up as well. If you'd allow us to get a couple questions, more questions up into the queue, and then we can get back to you as to next steps. Awesome. Sounds good. That's it for my questions. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Chief and Sheriff, both for for being here tonight and for doing what is clearly a difficult job in any situation, even more difficult in 2020. So. Hats off to you. I would not want to have your job. So thank you for for being willing to do it. I have received conflicting reports about how tasers are safe. They don't reduce violence on underserved communities like our bipoc neighbors. But there are also a. I get information from constituents that say the data shows that kids, which do not do any of the things that are purported to do, like prevent use of firearms by police or de-escalate police interactions. And so this particular email asks me to tell you to look at data. This particular one also didn't provide any any references to data. So I can't, you know, cite any particular source. But I wonder if if you have any knowledge of data in the police department of how tasers are used, how they reduce violence on underserved communities. I know that's kind of a softball question, but. But here we are. And I got the email today so I wasn't able to provide this to you in advance. So I can tell you that, you know, there have been hundreds of studies on the safety and effectiveness of tasers that has been to you referencing a constituent that reached out to you, saying that their knowledge of of a particular study counters that without seeing in that report, seeing if at source and if it's peer reviewed, it would be impossible for me to answer that particular question. What I can say is we have documented incidences where Taber Tasers have helped in very dangerous and violent situations of armed individuals that have been able to safely been addressed. And, you know, speaking a body cams, there's a city in Wisconsin that delayed the purchase of body cams and regrets that decision and now is expediting, getting those purchased. There's a city in Pennsylvania, a major city that made the same decision with regards to tasers and unfortunately in the very near time have dealt with a subsequent tragedy as well. So it's important that we have safe tools, that we have strong policy, and that we provide training around that policy to ensure adherence to this. You know, I'd have to point to the hundreds of studies, including independent academic, institutional studies, that point to the safety and effectiveness of that. And you'd have to look at that data or those resources to make an informed decision based on what you read. So. Thank you, Chief. Do you do you have data in the city of Denver? You know, specifically as opposed to studies elsewhere? The city of Denver. Do we have data that shows that there there has been a reduction in lethal force because we have used Tasers in a less than lethal situation. So this is this is not part of the use of force report. And this is an area that we seek to improve upon in the future. We don't have a checkbox. And Taser was used to save a life or in a in a lethal force encounter. We do know based on accommodations or situations where we have been able to help an individual that had a knife and is threatening family members where you're able to utilize less lethal tools in order to save individual lives. And again, the goal here is that you have the appropriate tools, the appropriate policy and the appropriate training around it. Thank you, Chief. The and you mentioned that we don't currently have a policy about tasers. I think you have mentioned that our policy document is a living document. It was most recently changed, I think, in perhaps response to some of the protests and speeches 17 that this the new body cameras automatically are automatically triggered when a firearm is on holstered or a taser in a holster. Is that correct? That is correct. That's an available feature that we think is important. With the upgrade in technology. So to that end, that we have this upgraded technology for the body cameras and cameras and supported equipment and software, etc., that would allow police department to more quickly update its document so that as soon as there is a report of a firearm being holstered or a taser being holstered, that could that could immediately trigger some other process. And we have hard data that shows exactly when each of that each of those events happened. Is that is that a fair statement? I yes. Let me just give additional context. So we currently require that report, and now this dataset would be used to cross-reference the reporting of it. So if you know, we had. 36 Taser deployments in 2020. You would then be able to cross-reference the use of force reports that 12 F to say officers completed 36 reports, and then you would have this data to say 36 times. A taser was removed from a holster. And if it turns out one says 36 and one says 35, we can point to just do a quick cross-reference. And we see that the officer that that hasn't submitted their report, correct? That is correct. We would initiate an investigation, an internal investigation that is then shared with the Office of Independent Monitor or Review. And then I also want to just go backwards for a second. You said something to the effect of we don't currently have a policy for Tasers. It may have just been a slip. We have a very strong policy for Tasers. It's part of the use of force policy, the very strong and progressive use of force policy that was done in conjunction with with input from various community members and community groups. So we could say we have one of, if not the strongest, most progressive use of force policy in the country. Over the next 12 to 17 days, does S.B. 217 change our data retention and release policy regarding body cameras? In some aspects with regards to, you know, the highest levels of use of force. It mandates that that that the DA's office that that those types of situations are released much sooner. And so does does it require body camera footage to be automatically released after a certain period of time, like, I think two weeks, 14 days and but like that of mine, my misremembering. For certain circumstances. Yes. In. Okay. Are. Okay. I think that's that's fair. Fair for now. I would agree with Councilmember Hastert about his concerns. I mean, this is the public's information and are that the public purchased the body cameras. And so I think there could be a case to be made to have all body camera information available upon request. But we're not talking about that to do so. So thank you for that. Your your response is the last thing that I would say is a mr. Horn over the city attorney's office mentioned that we have we have we published something regarding. Or rather, we we have a policy regarding publishing information regarding citizens in the city. I think, as members said about his point, was specifically about non-citizens. And so we want to make sure. I do want to ask the question, because you use the phrase citizen and I catch myself often using citizen. So, Mr. Holland, we have a policy regarding releasing information about anyone in this city, citizen or not. Is that is that right? We have a in reference to the immigration ordinance to answer Councilwoman Dukakis question. The city is precluded from use. Any officer employee is precluded from using any city city resources for federal immigration enforcement. In terms of body cameras, the question concerning citizens there is the press sometimes will request. Images or records because they are records under Cora. So it's my understanding that. They could be released under a court request. For citizens or for anyone. For. For the images in general as a record could be released. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Herndon thinking I'm president, just in the spirit of making sure everyone know their roles and responsibility. I just wanted to remind this council that this is a one reading resolution and any council member can delay a resolution for one week without a vote. And if any council member wants to do that, they have that option. Just reminding folks of what our responsibilities are. Thank you, Madam President. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. We are back up, Councilman CdeBaca. To Councilman Herndon's point. You are more than welcome to delay this for one week by invoking Council Rule 3.7. In order to accomplish that, we would just need to ask the folks who made the motion and second, to withdraw that. If that's your intent. Thank you, Madam President. I would love to delay for a week. Drawing its name. There's no motion or second necessary. Point of order. This rule change does not require withdrawal of the motion. It is under the rule. You just cite the rule. And so I just I think that this this additional step has never before been required and I don't believe is necessary. Sorry for the interruption in order. No worries. I appreciate that we have a motion and a second that put it on the floor for adoption. And so we would just ask that those be withdrawn because it's not on the floor right at this point, that that's the advice I'm getting from our council secretary right now. And so and then we can allow Councilwoman Sade Abarca to invoke 3.7 on withdrawal. Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Withdraw my ticket. Very good. Again, you can't invoke the rule for a bill that's not on the floor. I think this is with all due. We had moved and put it on the floor. Councilman Flynn had moved that council resolution 20 dash 1356 be adopted. Yes. And it has to be on the floor for the rule to then take effect. If we withdraw the motions, it becomes part of the consent agenda again and the rule can't be invoked. So I think the motions were proper. Sorry, I know this is. I think accomplishing we're accomplishing the same intent. And that was the direction that I had been given. Either way, we have that motion pulled back and we have a vote. 3.7 will double check on that, but there's no motion or second to invoke that. And so I'm getting the thumbs up from everybody on that. And so if we're all right, we'll go ahead and move on to the next item on the agenda council. Woman Say to Barca, you still have your hand up. Was there an additional question that you had or comment? No, ma'am. Just waiting in queue. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Very good. The next item up is Council Bill 1320. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 1320. Thank you, Madam President. And I actually got my questions answered on this one, so I don't have any questions on this one. All right. Very good. The next item up is Council Bill 1390. Council member State Abarca. Go ahead with your questions on Bill 1390, please. Thank you, Madam President. I am curious about a couple of pieces that are in this change and that were presented to us. There is a piece that allows the executive director of Human Services the ability to adopt rules and guidelines for this tax. And I wanted to know what is the plan to engage the public, either on the front end or after the rules are changed so that we're aware of what happens under this new power? Good evening. Thank you so much for the question, Councilman CdeBaca. My name is Krystal Porter. I am the program manager for the Ideas Program at DHS, which brought forth these ordinance revisions. And so I'm happy to answer your question about that. Our plan is to engage stakeholders prior to pursuing any rules and to follow the public rulemaking process that's outlined in the ordinance in the DRC. So we would plan to have some kind of stakeholder meetings that we've already had some thoughts and conversations that have been put forward to us from community members and stakeholders as part of some of the advisory groups that our our program engages. And we are looking forward to continuing those conversations. We didn't want to run before we had the ability to do so. So we haven't fully mapped out what that engagement process will look like. But we do plan for there to be several opportunities for people to weigh in. Thank you, Ms.. Porter. And if there's a stakeholder group or a committee set up, can you make sure that our officers get notice of that so that we can have somebody present? I'm also curious about a piece of the PowerPoint that had mentioned a community housing report, and I'm wondering what exists already to tell us a little bit about how our dollars are spent on housing under ideas. So under ideas, we have not pursued a lot of housing initiatives to date. We've worked through our advisory council at DHS to learn from them. What they wanted to see with that initial recommendation from a community needs assessment completed in 2018, what we have done is already invested dollars in housing stabilization efforts ramped that up quite a bit this year in response to COVID 19. So we're already in that space in different ways, but now we want to look at some opportunities to really change the landscape for housing. Opportunity for people with A.D.D. in this housing report will give us a level of detail specific to Denver that we don't have at this point. That'll be awesome. Can you tell me a little bit about classification? And if you require individuals to already have their I.D. classification when they come to you for services, or do you guys do any eligibility or classification services themselves? That is a great question. So the the what the classification or what we call eligibility determinations done through the community center board serving Denver. It's part of the state program administering funds for Medicaid waivers and and supports for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And so they often go through that process. What our ordinance does allow is it creates space for people that have an intellectual developmental disability but may not have been identified, or it may have at some point left the system and may have themselves experienced homelessness or been shuffled around and want to return back. So we do have the ability, if people have not received that designation before and need to be evaluated, our funds are still able to provide some resources and support to them as they pursue that eligibility. And do we do any of the outreach for that classification service in shelters or the jails? That would be a question that I could take back to the community center board partner that we work with, Rocky Mountain Human Services. I know they do some pretty extensive outreach. We also are looking for opportunities to do presentations and meet with different partners to learn how we can better educate people that are accessing these services from different points. And so if you have some ideas, we would love to meet with you further on that and we can certainly circle back with you on information about what's already happening through our partner with Rocky Mountain Human Services. Absolutely. I've done federal compliance for people with disabilities and find that a lot of people don't actually get the right classification or don't have a classification at all, especially in our jails and shelters, and want to make sure that that is one of the indirect costs that could be included. I'm also wondering if legal services for individuals with ADR are included in the indirect costs that this now allows us more flexibility to spend on. Um, Councilwoman CdeBaca, could you clarify which part? When you're discussing indirect costs, you're talking about indirect costs for our service providers through their contracts with us. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So. So, actually, the kind of services that you're describing would still be considered a direct service. So if we were providing legal services and sports for people with intellectual developmental disabilities, we would engage that service directly. It's a it's a direct labor cost. So the indirect costs that that cap refers to are meant to capture other costs that are necessary to running a business and having good infrastructure to actually deliver those direct programs. And so with your also, since you did clarify that, it's primarily about administrative and overhead costs. I'm wondering if you guys have a gold standard for the percentage split in the nonprofit world that they try to keep overhead to 5% or less. And so I'm wondering if we have set any thresholds or gold standards for us. That's a really great question. I would love to refer you to a memo that Denver Human Services worked on in response to questions kind of of a similar nature from Councilman Flynn at our November 18th safety housing presentation. I can speak briefly to it, though. What they're finding and really what actually the standard recommendation is moving forward is that and how the federal government actually does this with their agreements is to work with partners to understand their costs and to classify those costs so that no, they can actually take a realistic look at what's needed to be able to have a good impact and a good outcome for the people that are on the receiving end of that service. And in fact, there is the possibility that the the rate that you're describing is actually a rate that is insufficient to support the operating needs of an organization, particularly for organizations that are smaller and can't spread that that indirect cost around to various funding sources or projects. Awesome. How will the public get information about that? Because I'm less worried about the small organizations doing a million different things. I'm more concerned about our big boys on campus who, you know, have. Six figure salaries for their executives and the workers are getting $30,000 a year. I don't want to I don't want the city to be paying for those executive salaries. Now, that is a really great question. I mean, currently, the way that we've we've engaged that thus far is twofold. Certainly, people can see the contracts that we execute and can request those from the clerk in recorder's office. And so they have access to the various rates that we've negotiated with our partners. I mean, additionally, we do a lot of our reporting out on how our programs and services are operating through our advisory council based on questions that they've asked and information that they're interested in receiving. For our biggest player, in particular, the Rocky Mountain Human Services contract. They also come and do an annual report to City Council on the services provided and talk about the various aspects of those services and programs. And so I think we have multiple areas where there is the ability for light to be shed on those activities. But if you have some other ideas on how we can be as transparent as possible, that is absolutely our goal with this program and we look forward to hearing that from you. Awesome. And do we collect audited financials from our partners prior to releasing dollars to them either through grants or contracts? That is a great question. I would have to defer to Lori Noble, who is our financial services director, and she's on the call to kind of talk about our general practice with that. Thank you. And that's my last question. So when she answers that, that's it for me, Madam President. All right. Great. Thank you, Councilwoman. Go ahead, Lori. Hello. Thank you so much, Councilwoman, for your question. Yes, we actually do, as part of our risk assessment, understand what kinds of areas need to be looked at. And part of that risk assessment that is performed by our internal audit function and group is to look at any kind of audit reports that have come out for Rocky Mountain and other contractors. Awesome. Thank you very much. All right. Great. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I guess I'm going to. I think, Ms.. Porter, maybe you could answer this. How is the how is the contract with Rocky Mountain Human Services going? I think they took over on July 1st, right when they the fiscal year rolled over to the new fiscal year. All right. So, Councilman Hines, I think you're referring to the state contract for single entry point services for Medicaid waivers that are for that that can be accessed by people with ID, but are actually covering a wide span of other areas of service, including mental, mental health, mental illness, things like that. So talking about Human Services has, I believe, for over 25 years been serving Denver as the community centered boarding has been over the the Medicaid waivers that are specific for people with intellectual developmental disabilities. But to answer your question, from what I what I've seen and heard so far, I think it's going well. For the Heidi, 25 year history. Sorry. I know I was referring to your question about the recent transition. We do still follow kind of the general updates and activities about that, especially because there are a lot of people with ADT that may have opted to receive services through this other waiver, other waivers that are available to them. And so that transition has gone, I think, pretty well, pretty smoothly so far. And we look forward to hearing more from Rocky Mountain human sources about that. I would be happy to provide feedback about that too. I am on the sci fi through my flight, but that's not a waiver and thank you for pointing it out that that is not part of what we're discussing tonight. So, Madam President, thank you. I'm done. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Ortega. Get a muted here. Thank you, Madam President. So I wanted to ask Christo. You're the DHS point person. Right. So we do in a three year contract. Just out. Of curiosity. Yeah, I think that's a really great question. We in the past have done longer contracts with IHS. The contract that most recently ended was also a three year contract, and there are some really great opportunities there to ensure that there is some continuity in services. A lot of the services the military is supporting are services that people are accessing day in and day out. And so as much as possible, it just kind of helps us with our planning process and we still have the opportunity, you know, should an appropriation change from what we believe it could be in future based on what we believe revenues would be coming in from this council, then we have the opportunity to go in and amend the agreement. Same if there are any other issues that may come up over time. So the three year the three year agreement is is based on annual terms and performance and negotiating kind of a new budget for the next year. And so even though it's a three year agreement overall, it's segmented out pretty clearly into these individual terms that allows us to kind of evaluate services as we're going. So a number of years ago, it was agreed that. DHS would be holding back a percentage of. The dollars and allocating them. Yourselves, as opposed to the entirety of it. All being administered. By. Rocky Mountain Human Services. Because the history had been that although they could be contracting out. Some of those dollars, that wasn't really happening in real practice. So I guess I want to know a couple of things. How, what's what's the amount. Each year that's being held back? And is that being accrued with other dollars that haven't been allocated? Or are you guys allocating the full amount each year? And then as part of that, one of the provisions that I didn't agree with is that Rocky Mountain could also apply for the same amount that DHS was holding. Back and trying to reallocate to. Other providers in the community. And I haven't seen any data showing whether or. Not they are. Applying and getting some of that funding or whether it's actually going to other providers. So can you speak to some of that? Certainly I'd be happy to to answer those, and I'll try to kind of track through your question. It's been a lot of questions. Yeah. So firstly, when we look at how we're allocating our funds, we actually aren't basing it on a set percentage. We're not saying, you know, 75, 85, 95% go to Rocky Mountain Human Services. We're meeting with them and working with them and listening to what's happening to services at the state level and listening to what needs are elevated to us through our various stakeholder engagement and community conversations, so that we're actually funding services that are really pivotal to people's lives and wellbeing. And so we don't hold ourselves to a set amount because we want to be responsive to the need. And what is there, I will say of our for our agreement this year, it was a $15 million agreement for 2020. Over $3 million of that was contracted out to providers of various sizes through our Rocky Mountain services for initiatives and projects separate from the community center board that does not include services that are contracted in the day to day as part of our Mill Levy Service Plan program, which basically means if someone is only has it in their service plan to be able to access the program four days a week, the bill of funds can fund that fifth day if if there's a need for that, and so that those funds then go out through contract to those providers that are providing that service for that individual and is based on that individual's selection of that provider. Currently, any funds that are not being spent are through our mutual agreement are either contracted through. We have about five partners, I believe right now, five active partners that are not Rocky Mountain Human Services, that are doing great work in the community. And we're really looking to seek out several more partners in the next year. That's part of what we're hoping to accomplish with some of these ordinance changes, is to create space for those providers because we recognize that there's going to be a lot more diversity than the direct assistance that we provide through Rocky Mountain. So will you clarify. If that's just US dollars you're. Talking about, or is that a combination of the dollars that they contract out. As well as the DHS dollars? So that's the DHS dollars. Okay. Rocky Mount Human Services contracts with over I would say last year in their 2019 report, they reported 103 community provider agencies. So completely separate of that, we've got five we're working with, one of which is Rocky Mountain Human Services. We have several more on deck. We're working through those various contracts and projects to get them established. And and we're looking forward to bringing at least two of those to you guys in the near future. So it would be helpful to get a list of all of those community provider agencies that Rocky Mountain contracts with. I know that what were the discussions we had some time ago was around trying to meet the needs of individual clients. That are currently under. The Rocky. Mountains. Purview, if you will. And, you know, it's it's a lengthy and complex process that people have to follow to get in, to be able to access services. You've got to be on the wait list, you know, all of that stuff. And so I'm just curious to know how that's going in terms of whether individuals ability to get more services now has been expanded as the amount of money has increased since. I mean, COVID has had a huge impact on it. But when I. Came on in 2011, we were at somewhere in the ballpark. Of about 11 to $12 million a year, and now it's way in excess of that. And so I guess I'm just curious whether we're getting more people in the pipeline and and their services or being met. I know we can do some services. While they're on or awaiting. Getting on the waitlist. But I just looking at the PowerPoint, which I have in front of me that you all presented to the the committee, I can't tell whether or not we're giving more services to individuals or whether we've gotten more people into the pipeline that need them. And again, it would be helpful to know kind of where are we on the waitlist as well? Absolutely. That's something that we connect with Rocky Mountain on fairly frequently. And I would love to set up a follow up with you and possibly share. Happy to do that. Little more. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. I think. You know, this is a program. That Cathy Reynolds actually was the catalyst in, in moving forward by creating this special mill levy for the developmentally disabled community in Denver. And over time, it has. Since the inception, it's been the same entity doing this. And I know that they have to be approved through the state, but it it almost also violates our executive order that tries to put these things out to be it on a regular basis. And when it started, all of the different providers in our community were getting a share of these dollars to serve their their clients. And now it's kind of like the Rocky Mountain is is the sole entity that. You know, that is our community service provider through sort of approved by the state. But at the same time, some of those others have tried to gain access to the resources and some have been successful. Others have not been as successful. And so the access continues to be an ongoing. Concern and making sure that you all are tracking that. And I know that's part of why. You hold those extra dollars aside to ensure that the needs are. Being met in our community. So it would be helpful to have that. Follow up with you, to. Just understand a little bit more detail, kind of where are we with the waitlist and where are we in in terms of spreading those dollars further? Or are we putting more. Dollars into each individual that's already in the you know, in the system? Thank you. Certainly. And if it's okay, Madam President, I'd love to just create a couple of points of clarity there. I think you're right in the sense that we've worked with this energy for a really long time, and there have been times where that hasn't gone as well as I'm going right now. What I will say, though, is that they are because of their state designation and the role that they played in the community, they are kind of this nucleus for services in Denver and it is challenging and not really necessarily our intention to create different entry points for services when we have a population that is especially vulnerable and may have difficulty navigating a more complex system. So I would love to have more conversation with you about that. I think we've done a lot to try to diversify our provider network, and we're looking forward to doing more of that. And one of the things I would love to point all council members to, since this deadline is coming up, we actually have one of our new partners, Point B strategies is working with organizations on the smaller side to work with them on projects up to $10,000. And that application window is open until December 4th, which is Friday. And hopefully you you all are able to push that out quickly without. Cumbersome contracting. Nightmare. We do our best well following what's necessary to adhere to our contracting process, but I hear that feedback. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you. I have no further. Questions or comments. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Ah, and thank you, Crystal, as well. Our next item up is Council Bill 1271. And Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Bill 1271 on the floor for final passage?