A bill for an ordinance pursuant to section 15-51 of the D.R.M.C. that suspends the amount of the annual Fair Elections Fund appropriation effective for no more than one year. Suspends the appropriation to the Fair Elections Fund for one year. Councilmember Flynn approved filing this item on 10-22-20.
A move that canceled the 20 dash, 1194 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Council member say the Barker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just. I mean, Madam President, just wanted to call to attention. We've heard from many people over the last few weeks about the potential of gutting the Fair Elections Fund this year to fund our proposed council amendments. We've heard a lot of opposition to that idea. I stated it in our operating operations meeting last week, but I'll say it again for those tuning in for the first time, the way that this source fund for our amendments was unilaterally slipped into the letter by the mayor or letter to the mayor by Councilman Flynn was disrespectful to those of us who did our homework and proposed our own identified appropriate sources for each of the amendments that we proposed. The choice to defund fair elections instead of defunding the police or the militarized occupation of our communities by DPD and other private and partner local law enforcement entities was tone deaf to the hundreds of people who've devoted their time to us through emails, calls, testimony. As someone who's been chastised for direct filing and allegedly not engaging community. I find it ironic that we're voting on a direct file defunding the clerk in recorder's office without having that office's support to get this fund. In fact, I reached out to them about the proposed idea when it happened and they knew nothing about what was going on. And so I hope that my colleagues will recognize the self-serving nature of defunding the Fair Elections Fund, a fund that could potentially actually help pay for a challenger to take anyone and all of our seats . I hope that with that recognition, recognition that you will not give the public a reason to come for your seats. Colleagues, please vote no tonight and show the public that we respect them enough not to undermine fair elections and this fund in its very first year of implementation. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Hines, I had to call you out as well. You had asked to call this bill out. And so out of respect, do you want to go ahead and say your comments? And then I've got Councilmember Flynn up. I can defer to Councilmember Flynn and go after him. Thank you. Okay, great. Just wanted to make sure I know that both you and Councilmember CdeBaca had called it out. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. First off, I didn't slip anything into the letter. I didn't write the letter. I brought this up in our budget meetings as a potential source because after my study of the issue, I thought it would it was something we should consider. First of all, this does not gut the fund at all. Not even close. The voters literally, literally gave us the authority to consider suspending or reducing the general fund transfer in a year of a fiscal crisis. The group that wrote this ordinance included this provision in their initiative. Why was it put in there if they don't want us to consider it? This does not override the will of the people. It literally uses a provision in the bill that the citizens wrote and and gave to us. If the sponsors didn't want us to consider this, they shouldn't have included it in the law. Secondly, this bill does not do away with the fund, and it leaves the fund with more than adequate resources to meet the demands of candidates in the next election. I would not have pursued this without first doing my homework on it. I take great pride in doing my homework on on bills and coming prepared. It is effectively a $500,000 reduction over the four year period. The 2019 election were the most expensive we've ever had with a very competitive mayor's race. Three open seats, three incumbents defeated. I would have used only $4 million of the $8 million fund. Even the sponsor of the original initiative, with whom I worked to rewrite this into a more workable system with the clerk's office and refer it to the ballot. In 2018, they ran a simulation of the 2019 city elections, assuming that the Fair Elections Fund would have been in place then and published it on the website, on their website, showing that up to two and a half weeks before the May election, only $2.7 million would have been distributed among the 51 candidates. I would not have submitted this recommendation if I had any doubt that it would leave the Fund without sufficient resources. The recent memo that we got from the clerk's office significantly overestimates the amount that will be needed. I shared my analysis with you all over the weekend. I demonstrated that by backtracking some of its assumptions and the scenarios, and I found multiple areas where it was just overinflated. There was so much cushion in these figures. It could have been written by the Mypillow guy. But I do understand and I respect my colleagues who are persuaded otherwise and will vote differently. I realize that the votes aren't there, here, aren't here now to move this forward. But the optics that I was concerned with is that with city workers forced to take between three and four weeks without pay through furloughs this year and next, because of our budget crisis that we wouldn't consider a half million dollar reduction in the tax subsidies to our own campaigns. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I know we have a lot going on tonight, so I want to be as brief as possible. I would say the clerk has performed his own analysis. And according to their analysis, the the fund needs the money that the people voted to provide it. I trust Denver elections know about elections. That's what they do, after all. And and when I have to decide between the validity of an elections analysis or a colleague analysis about elections, I'm going to trust elections. Also, I believe that the idea is to provide funding for everyone, not just incumbents. And I'm concerned that if we run out of funds, this could turn into an incumbent defense fund, not a fair elections fund. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilman, cashier. A Thank you, Madam President. I'll just start by saying that I totally reject the notion that anybody is considering this issue on either side in some attempt to gain advantage in any future election. When this topic was first brought up, I thought, well, if we wanted to borrow, say, a half million bucks and get it replenished the next year, that might be something I'd consider. But after receiving the mayor's response to our list. Of amendments. I felt he got a little bit carried away with diving into that fund. I have great respect for Councilman Flint, tremendous respect for Clarke Lopez and his staff. I would tend to lean towards. The clerk's. Assessment of the landscape, but mainly we have no idea what this is, how much money we're going to need. And even more. Concerning than that is we have no idea where our country is going budget wise. So I'm going to take the conservative approach to protect the fund that our voters passed. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I won't repeat what my colleague, Councilman Flynn. Already shared, but two things that I want to mention. Is that. We basically have said that we're going to engage in a re-imagining policing effort. That is. Underway, and we were awaiting recommendations from that process to then determine. What kinds of changes we might want to see to the police budget. Now, even. Aside from that, you know, we identified as a priority to add more funding to the STAR program, which. The mayor agreed to do. We in. The letter offered basically of the items $371,800. To come out of. That fund or two. To take it away from the police recruit class. Secondly, I don't know how many of you are aware of a recent poll that has been done that looks at where the public is. In regard. To, you know. Support of policing in our city. You know, we hear a lot from people who come to our meetings on a on a regular basis. And I don't discount their input, but there are a lot of other people. That are in this city who have weighed in via this poll. And I'm trying to pull it up right as we speak. But the bottom. Line is that when you look at and I'm happy to share with you all that it's saying that 60%. Of the responders the question, one of the questions was asked, do you want the police to spend more or less or the same amount of. Time in our neighborhoods? The answer was 60%. The same more was 24%. And less than. 16%. Was to on less. And so that's that's just. One of the questions. There are a couple of others on there. I think. It's important. To just kind of know and understand the sentiment of. Where the public is on that. And then the. Last thing is. Today's economic times and the challenges we're dealing with with our city budget. Have never been. Worse. Than they are today. And the folks who drafted this particular bill gave. City council, gave city leaders. The option to look at that fund, not not funding it fully. In these kinds of. Conditions. And and so to see the full court press that. Was put out by the. Very, you know, leader who spearheaded bringing that forward to try to, you know, dictate to us that we should not be using this. And, you know, again, I don't want to repeat what Councilman Flynn just said. About how much money. Would be needed for the 2023 elections. I think, you know, the conditions and the provision. Absolutely give us the authority to do that. And so given the fact that our letter suggested that as one of the funding sources and now we're saying, you know. We we don't want to use it. I think is disingenuous to the process that we're we're going through right now. So just want to share that. I think this is absolutely an item that. Should. We should be considering to address some of the priorities. That council has identified. In a time that we're asking for money for for a number of things when, you know, everybody else was taking cuts. And, you know, some of those are really good and important items. But at the same time, everybody's cutting. We've been adding. To this budget. So I just wanted. To share my thoughts about where I'm at tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. You know, I think that it's good that we disagree and that we all have different opinions. That's democracy at work. What I struggle with is the attempt to portray this as something that it's not. Rather than having a debate and all of us advocating that there may be a better source of funding than what's proposed. Arguments that I think have real merit. And I think we should. But I think we should be able to have this debate without resorting to dressing this as something that is not. And I completely agree with Councilman Cashman. I don't believe that anyone is trying to do this as an attempt to thwart what the voters had in mind or to keep their job. I think this has to do with the fact that we have a huge financial crisis and we were in that and we have a bunch of amendments that we as council asked to be included and want to change to the budget. So I just want to be clear, this does not gut the fair election fund. I believe looking over the analysis that there will still be plenty of money in this fund to fully fund the 2023 municipal elections. Even if we were to choose to do this as the voters envisioned, even with this amendment and voters approved this specifically with the provision that this is an appropriate thing to consider and debate in the midst of a fiscal crisis. This is the biggest fiscal crisis we've ever seen. So this is not the time to at least look at this then. Then when is that was built in to the bill? I believe that this is a responsible way to look at funding these things. And again, not that there aren't merit to other arguments about, hey, there is a different way to fund it, but I think that this is a reasonable option. I appreciate that. Councilman Flynn, you know, brought this forward for our consideration. And I do think that it's an avenue to fund these amendments without taking away from other critical city services that have already been cut during this crisis and and to retain plenty of money for the intended use in 2023. So I will be supporting it today. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Black. Thanks, Madam President. I'm going to say a lot of the same things that have already been said. I would never support an effort to override the will of the voters. Just as Councilman Clark just pointed out, this doesn't do this. In fact, the fair elections bill that voters approved allowed for this very scenario in the city might be in a budget crisis. Following up on what Councilwoman Ortega said about our financial crisis and Councilman Flynn's comments about the sacrifices our city workers have to make when they are taking three or four weeks of unpaid furlough days, I think there is no other better indication of the crisis that we are in right now. I do believe this bill ensures that the Fair Election Fund will be replenished so that adequate funds will be available for the 2023 election. I, for one, will not be using any taxpayer dollars for my next campaign. I am going to vote yes tonight because in our letter that we all agreed to, we put the Fair Election Fund as a possible funding source. I don't know why we would have put that in the letter if we didn't think it was a realistic option. So I agree that we don't have the votes here tonight, but just because of the fact that we put it in the letter, I will be voting yes tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam Sident I just a commentary that we sent six key recommendations to the mayor for budget changes with a number of suggestions for sources. It was the mayor who sent back preliminary approval for all those recommendations to come from the Fair Elections Fund. There were other sources identified, and I think we put thought into those. And I would like to make sure that that we go back to those next week. While I believe the clerk made a good faith effort to support what the council might be going through right now in not necessarily opposing this move as long as the fund was made whole again. But I don't think we need to dip into the fund to get these things funded. I think there are other sources within the city. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman, can each. Excuse me. Thank you, Madam President. So I have been following this discussion really closely, and I think that it concerns me that there is a narrative in our country right now that it's all or nothing and that, you know, two very subtle things that seem opposing can't be true, that it's all black and white. And I guess that, you know, I will just say that I feel like the letter was the function of a very crunch time line. People did their best. Some people apparently had time to review it. Some people didn't. But there were not bad intentions there. Right. But it was also true that it was rushed and it is hard for human beings with the workload that this council has to meet very compressed timelines. So, you know, in terms of the analysis, I think it's both true that fewer dollars would be needed under a scenario in the past. But I also I don't know what explains the Clarke's difference in analysis, but I think people will behave differently in future elections where they know matching is possible. And so I think it is reasonable to say that we should go the conservative route and fully fund just in case to be prepared for this first cycle. And that that's a prudent thing to assume that behavior would be different based on this law. It doesn't mean that someone you know, I don't know. I don't know if that's why their analysis came out differently. But but I think I just I think that it if I were in a different timeline, you know, we I'm not interested in sacrificing some of the items on our amendment list. Right. So I guess what I would say is, if this were closer to PAC thing, what I'd want to do is amend it and have it continue to second reading so that we can more thoroughly get a chance to evaluate whether or not things can pass with the sources that were proposed. Right. So, for example, I had none. You know, this was listed as an option for one of the amendments that I worked on, which was the staff contribution. But the staff contribution exceeds the value of this entire contribution. So it does not these dollars are not enough to fund our entire list, even if we were to approve this tonight. But they may be a source that could help a few items get over the finish line that might struggle. So I will just say that I gave several conditions to Councilman Flynn on my support for this measure. One was that we didn't reduce the funding completely in 2020 because I thought it was important that the community see the ongoing commitment to the fund. And the second was that it be restored to the full amount in the next year so that we would be made whole for this cycle. And I acknowledge we may be over funding it for this cycle. We don't know and I think it's fair for the community to see the full amount funded for one cycle and then we can evaluate if it really is only two and a half million, maybe we slow it down for the next cycle. Things will also get more expensive in four years. So you can see that taking a conservative route might continue to keep a balance. But you you don't want the taxpayers dollars sitting there unused. So I guess that, you know, if this were, you know, a seven, six type situation or six seven, I might say, let's continue the conversation for another week so that we can see if indeed this might be the source needed to get some of these items over the finish line. But I would amend it to change the restraint restored amount. I'm not going to do that on first reading because I think that it's it's likely not going to pass. But I just want to describe the the fact that it could be a situation where we find some items from the sources that were suggested because there were very important reasons for those sources and they're reasonable sources. I think, for example, an $80 million parks budget can afford a $360,000 restroom expense, for example. I wouldn't suggest this or any other source for that. You know, there's a there's a reason why that budget should be carrying this, but it may be that other items do need these dollars. So so I guess that I just want to reiterate things that I've heard from people on both sides, which is that it's important for the community to have trust and for them to have trust. I think consistency of funding, even at a reduced level in accordance because we do have a fiscal crisis. And I do believe I just want to be clear that if I vote no on this tonight, I am in no way, shape or form saying that it is inappropriate to reduce the payment to this fund in the future. It may be necessary and it may be appropriate. And the goal then is to catch it back up. And frankly, if this city were to ever have a situation in. Where we had more qualified candidates than this fund could support. We would have a moral obligation to run a supplemental. So frankly, I don't even feel like the fund balance is the determining factor. The determining factor should be how many dollars are needed, and it is our moral obligation to fund that. And that is what we have a contingency fund every year. We have a 2% contingency fund. Even in a recession, we have a 2% contingency fund for unexpected items. And these dollars could be if we have five recalls or retirements that were before the end of the cycle in 2022, for example. And we were not fully funded yet. We could then use a supplemental that is what that contingency fund is for. So I just want to be clear. The value of fair elections is not under attack today. Even the funding for fair elections is not under attack. We have a balance in the fund today, but I do think we have not given the right details in this proposal to fully support the trust of the community by fully that funding it for at least one full cycle. So. So I am likely to know tonight unless it looks like this is going to pass, in which case then I will be moving to amend it on final reading. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon thinking I'm president. I want to thank my colleagues who have articulated quite nicely how what this doesn't do. So I won't reiterate that nor repeat it. I think that in this particular case, we're doing just what the voters allowed us to do. And during the worst fiscal crisis most people can ever, certainly in their recent history, to not even consider this source of funds, I think, would be irresponsible, because most other sources and we could certainly have conversations about our reserves, but the percentage that we had going lower than that would make me uncomfortable. Taking from other sources what we require more cuts to our city. And I, I believe that our city has had enough cuts, particularly for 2021. So considering utilizing some of these funds so that our city agencies wouldn't have to take even more of a deeper cut, I felt fiscally was the prudent way to go and that's why I am supporting this moving and I would certainly hope this would be something that we would consider to do. But I certainly appreciate the dialog and reasons why we should. And I don't I don't have any ill will towards the court because if I was elected recorder, I would have concerns as well. But I think we should acknowledge no matter which analysis was done, click on Recorder's Office, Councilman Flynn's office. There are assumptions in that and you have to make those assumptions. So I would certainly I support this moving forward and I hope that my colleagues would consider it. But if not, we're going to have to make some hard choices about where else we're going to make cuts even more painful. Painful, deeper cuts. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Hines, I have you back up in the in the queue. Thank you, Madam President. Just two quick points. I do want to thank all my colleagues for the reason conversation that we're having, and I respect everyone here. Second is, I would disagree that the Fair Elections Fund is that just because the Fair Elections Fund was in the letter that we all agreed to it in the day we had to provide or the day we had to provide edits to the letter. I did share my reservations about adding the Fair Elections Fund and encouraged its removal. It remained in the letter that. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Haines. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I have a question. For the mayor's office. Is anyone on the line who could answer a question? We have Skye Stewart perfect on the line from the mayor's office. Okay. All right, Councilman, can you repeat the question I just was asking? Who was on the line? I didn't ask the question yet. Okay, thanks. I thought I missed it. I just wanted to make sure you were a panelist. Thank you. So. Hey, Skye. Have in recent. Times, in recent memory. Do you ever remember there being a budget amendment that came forward that promised to pay back a fund? So I've been racking my brain. I've been going through all my. Notes since working for Councilman Monteiro starting in 2012. And I can never write. And I called a. Couple people. Who served as electeds during the Great Recession. No one can remember a proposal. Where we. Take money from a fund but didn't promise to fund it again. How would that work? So thanks for the question. In some ways, that's probably more of a legal question than it is one for me. You are correct. I don't remember a time when we have made that kind of commitment. I think, you know, typically everything has to be subject to a council approval of appropriation. And so it would have to be considered on a year by year basis based on our financial condition. So I don't remember ever being in a in a bill before. Certainly, I think there have been conversations in the past about a number of different things where there might be a priority identified, that there have been commitments to figuring out ways to get to that funding. But I think you're correct. I don't remember seeing it in a in a bill per se before. Thank you. And then one other question. Remind me just of the process. So do did. City council always. Propose to the mayor here where we should get funding for our amendments from? What funds. Does is. That historically what happens? So another good question and I would separate out the two processes, the informal process that comes with requests that come in the letter to the mayor and then the formal budget amendment process, which which starts now as part of the budget being in front of Council for Public Hearing and action. In the case of the request letter, it has been it's been something that's been talked about every year. I think we have always encouraged council members to think about what sources it might come from, but it has not been provided every year. It's it has depended on the council, I think probably depended on the economic condition. But many times it has been that requests come in and sort of say, use your judgment where these dollars would come from. Certainly when you were in the formal budget amendment process, you would have to identify that source, which means that you are addressing both the the new funding you want to create and what you think should be reduced. As part of trying to have a collaborative process. It is always helpful to have those discussions and those suggestions put forward, but it's not a requirement in that budget request letter. So it has varied over the years. Sometimes we have had sources identified or suggested and sometimes we have not. And in that same way, sometimes the mayor has taken those suggestions and sometimes he has not. Okay. Thank you, guys. For those. Questions. So I just want to say. This one, is it? It's challenging to have a discussion. I know, Councilman Quinn, that you didn't have the opportunity to. Push this through. Committee. It's challenging to have direct files come. And I don't think that you did this to hide anything. It just was the time crunch that we always find ourselves in right now. Some public comment was made that we you were attempted to do this to hide something. And I don't think that and I think your intent was to be fiscally responsible. And you saw this as a fund. So with that, I'll just continue listening to my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman Flynn, we've got you back up. And then I don't think we have heard from Councilwoman Sawyer yet tonight. In this conversation. So I wanted to ask Councilwoman Flynn if it's okay if I bounce over to Councilman Sawyer. All right. Thank you. Go ahead, Councilwoman. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Sorry. I was, like, shouting to my family to turn on the TV in the background, working and working from home. Sorry about that. Thanks, Madam President. I really appreciate this conversation. With all of my council members and very much appreciate Councilman Flynn's position. I think it was thoughtful and I certainly think it came from the right place. I have said many times I did not support this. I did not support the Fair Elections Fund because I have a lot of concerns about Citizens United. And I don't I don't know that a fair elections fund without the federal government addressing Citizens United. And that decision makes sense because, frankly, until soft side spending in elections is addressed, it doesn't necessarily do any good to fix this side, to fix the hard side. That said, the voters have spoken. And I think, you know, when 71% of people in Denver say that they want something, it is not fair for us to necessarily, you know, change that, particularly in its first year. And, you know, maybe if we had more information, maybe if we had historical data to pull from, then I would be willing to support it. Maybe if it were only one or two priorities that the mayor's response letter had pulled from, then that would be different. But the letter that came, I guess, when I when I agreed to can, you know, sending this in consideration, I didn't expect the letter to come back to us from the mayor's office with almost every single one of our priorities being funded out of the Fair Elections Fund, because in a billion and a half dollar budget, every single one of council's priorities shouldn't have been funded out of the Fair Elections Fund. I think that that put on council an unfair expectation. And and. And put us in a situation where we're having to have this conversation in in the first place at all. And that is not something in a billion and a half dollars and a billion and a half dollar budget that ever should have happened in the first place. So that alone is why I won't be supporting this tonight, because I think we have a billion and a half dollars. We could shake some couch cushions and find money for council's priorities without defunding the Fair Elections Fund that 71% of Denver voters approved in 2018. And I think that it doesn't make sense for us to tap this fund to this extent without further historical data and information to pull from. So I just wanted to put that out there. And thanks so much, Madam President. And. Q Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I wasn't going to speak again, but I raised my hand only after Councilwoman Kennedy made her remarks. And I want to thank her for for that. It was because of her remarks that I approached the finance office and the mayor's office to see could we figure out a way to replenish the fund after this next budget, which is the worst year we expect? And could we possibly get up to the $2 million that I think Councilman Cashman had asked me to look at? And Councilwoman Kennish also and the 1.5 million replenishment was about the maximum that I could get a commitment from finance to do. They have actually asked for more flexibility and were and if Brendan is listening, there were a little upset when I actually put in the bill that it had to be a half a million in 2022 and 1 million in additional in 2023. And that was the most I could get. So I'm sorry to say, Councilwoman, can you. I don't think it would be possible to get to the commitment for the full 2 million. It might be possible if we have a better recovery than we are currently anticipating. But I do want to thank Madam President, all of all of my colleagues who spoke. It's a really difficult task, and I understand all of your reasons for doing it. None of our votes is is always is clearly black and white. It always requires a lot of thought and nuance. And so I appreciate the reasons everybody stated for whether they're voting yes or no. And that's all I have. Madam President, thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I'll go ahead and weigh in here before we do roll call. And so I appreciate how intentional all of you are. We had these same sort of conversations during our televised budget hearings as well into our four days of deliberation. It was transparent. The public knew what we were talking about. And as being the president of council, if I failed on the side of trying to get us to compromise, I'm okay with that because I represent all of you. And that letter was a combination of everybody's ideas, all the work we put together. And far be it from me as the president of council saying to one of my colleagues, Councilman Flynn, I don't think that's going to fly. I'm not for it. I don't think we should put it in the letter. We discussed it at one of our meetings. You know, there were opportunities for folks to edit it and look at it. I think the the greatest disappointment is that. We tried to be partners in this process with the administration. And unfortunately, through sitting through and listening to all of our budget hearings, there was great. Just just. Great allowances taken with utilizing the Fair Election Fund for all of our asks. I mean, we asked for 3 million for the Star Expansion Citizen Oversight Board. That should have been over 91,000. And so, you know, unfortunately, with it being such a difficult budget year, I figured we were going to be in some sort of conversation like this. I just didn't anticipate that there wasn't going to be that back and forth, especially on the items that we intentionally did not list, the Fair Elections Fund, and there was no discussion or other options given to that. We could have put no funding source in our letter, and it still could have come back with utilize the Fair Elections Fund or you're just not going to get any of these assets. And so I wanted to note kind of the history as I saw it and what we did. And and honestly, there was no nothing nefarious around us putting something in Last-Minute or Councilman Flynn trying to slide something by. I mean, we need to look at every single option out there to address what we have been hearing from our constituents since March. And that is the true intent. And for. No conversation to be had. To clarify, are you saying 3 million total for 2021 or is your ask 3 million? There was no back and forth and to be tone deaf to the public around wanting to have more investment in the community from a safety and quite frankly, from an anti-racist anti oppression lens. How we're looking at safety. We've got to look at where we're going to pull those funds and be responsive to what our constituents and community have been telling us. And I look forward to working with you all during this week to figure out how we can make that happen when we get back together at Council on the seconds to look at finalizing the 2021 proposed budget. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. See the bucket? No. Clark. I. When I. Herndon. I. Huh? No. Cashman? No. Kenny. Ask Ortega? Yes. In? Never, no. So we're. Now. Tory. No. Black. Yes. Can we? Now. Madam President? No, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Five eyes, eight made. Five Eyes, Eight Nays Council Bill 1194 has failed. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are or published. Council members. Remember, this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Torres, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? A move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the Bloc for the following items. 20 Dash 1108 20 Dash 1109 20 Dash ten 8520 Dash 1107 20. Dash 11 6320. Dash 905 20. Dash 1113. 20 209 3120 Dash ten 8020 Dash 11 1122 Dash 1058 2010 5420. Dash ten 7320. Dash 1050 and 20. Dash 1051. It has been moved and second to. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see the bouquet. By. The car. My friend. I. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Can each. I like. Ortega. I see all. I. Sawyer. I. Correct. I. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 3913 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass the pre recess announcement. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 929. Changing the zoning classification of 1290 William Street and Cheeseman Park are required public hearing on the mayor's proposed 2021 budget and a 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council Resolution 1042 approving a proposed agreement between the city and County of Denver and Universal Protection Service LP for Security Personnel Services. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please remember to turn off your cameras and meet your microphones and we will return at 7:38 p.m.. I'm Russell. Hey. And I'm Michael Smith from Denver seven. Join us for Denver decides where we'll be asking the tough questions to candidates. During the 2020 election. We'll go in-depth with the contenders when we meet to debate the issues as we present the candidate forums. Denver Decides also takes a closer look. At the complex November ballot for Denver voters. 2020 has been a challenging year for everyone, but we're here to help you navigate the upcoming election. Times may be tough, but voting shouldn't be. Join us for Denver decides. Where Denver voters go to get informed. 311 is here for residents during the COVID pandemic. Currently in Denver, customer facing retail employees should always be wearing masks while on the job, and many businesses have a current maximum capacity of 50% occupancy. So if you see an unsafe situation at a business, restaurant or park related to mask wearing or social distancing, give 311a call or submit a case on pocket gov. Once you receive a report, the city will come out and educate business owners so that they can be in compliance. Our main goal is your safety. To report COVID related violations, such as a large house party, residents need to call Denver police on their non-emergency line as this situation continues to evolve. You'll always find the city's most up to date. Information on Denver gov dot org. Denver 311 and pocket go help you navigate Denver City Services. Denver's HOV crosswalk signals are helping us cross streets more safely. Just press the button to activate the flashing yellow warning lights so drivers are alerted to slow down and stop giving pedestrians a safe way to cross. Visit Denver gov dot org slash vision zero. Clearing your yard of fallen leaves is easy with Denver leaf drop a leaf collection and composting program of Denver recycles. Denver residents can drop off their leaves on these days at several convenient locations during the week. Leaves can be dropped off during business hours at the Denver Solid Waste Transfer Station or the Havana nursery through these days . Call 311 or log on to the website for details about this and other residential public works programs. This week on New York City. Now, as the nation gears up to vote in November. Learn about Denver's procedures to conduct a safe and secure election. It's a special election episode of your city now. The ability to participate in the next election begins with registration or enrollment to vote. When registering to vote, the number one key date is if you want your ballot mailed to you, you have to do that by October 26. Now, remember, if you're 17 years old and you turn 18, by the time November 3rd comes around, you're able to vote. The main thing you have to be able to prove, you have to be a citizen of the United States in order to vote. You have to be able to prove 22 days state residency. So one of the things that you always want to make sure people understand is the importance of keeping your address up to date. Voters experiencing homelessness still have the ability to vote. They just need to be able to provide a mailing address. And then we also, over the time, the great partnership with the Denver Sheriff's Department to make sure that anyone who's confined but not in active felon status, they're still able to vote. We offer same day voter registration. So you can do that through our website which is Denver votes dawgs voter info or you can also go to go vote Colorado dot gov and you're able to sign up online. So your ballots are actually going to start being mailed beginning October 9th. And that gives you all the way to the last day to vote on November 3rd, 7 p.m. to be able to cast your ballot, fill out all your information, make sure you put it in the envelope, you sign it and you can actually drop it in one of our drop boxes. There's 38 of them around the city. You can put a stamp on it and pop it in the mail or you can actually bring it up and drive up and hand it to one of our election judges at one of our vote centers around the city. What we have is a is actual system called ballot trace dot org and you can go to ballot trace dot org and you can sign up to track your ballot. We actually send you a text message or an email message of every step of the way so you know that your ballot is going through that system. After October 26, we don't recommend that you put it in the mail because it's going to take that long to be able to get to us. Post 26 We're asking you to go drop it off at one of our 24 hour drop boxes all the way up until November 3rd, 7 p.m.. If you do have to come in person to cast your vote, we have all kinds of protections in place. We will have plexiglass or glass shields between the election judges and the voters. Every single pen, every single voting tablet, everything that may come into contact with a person is actually sanitized between each voter. One of the things that will happen starting Monday, October 12th, will actually be moving voting in person down to the McNichols Building at the Civic Center. But at this early stage of the game, if you need any assistance again, call 311 and hit option eight and they'll take you directly to an election specialist. The Denver elections division, in addition to being nationally recognized, is also internationally recognized for what we do. We have had visitors come to Denver to see how we serve our voters, to see the processes that we put into place. There are three key points that I would want voters to understand about our model. The first is that we conduct rigorous list maintenance to make sure that our voter registration rolls are accurate. And then we conduct rigorous review and verification of every step of the process with bipartisan teams, rigorous chain of custody logs, rigorous signature review. We have an FBI specialist who comes in and trains our judges on how to conduct signature verification. No part of our counting system has any external network connection, so there's no way somebody could hack into our tabulation system and manipulate it in any way. We conduct rigorous testing before and after the election to make sure that the system is working. Denver is at the forefront. We have the best election model in the country and it is pandemic proof cyber proof weatherproof voters can go on to our website Denver votes dot org and they'll be able to see our ballot processing rooms in real time through this election. They can watch a live video feed of them. They can also take step by step tours through our ballot process so they can see every step of that I've described and how we protect their vote and make sure the election is secure. You can catch new episodes of your city now every Friday. Thanks for watching, Denver. Denver, like cities across this nation, is facing the triple threats of a public health pandemic. An economic collapse. Any long overdue reckoning on race. But Denver is not like other cities. You see in Denver, we have a history. Telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing some so their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one and your microphone. If you are signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding of time. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill 929 on the floor for passage?