A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of procedure in regard to the postponement or re-referral to committee of resolutions submitted to Council for approval of any matter arising under Section 3.2.6 of the Charter. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Authorizes individual council members to postpone for one week (or re-refer to committe) resolutions approving contracts or leases, if Council allows contract and lease approvals by one-reading resolution rather than ordinance. This resolution is being filed by Councilwoman Kniech.
Yes, sir. I move that council resolution for 61 series of 2015 be placed on the floor for adoption. It has been moved in second hand. Comments. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. For the benefit of my colleagues who don't serve on the committees and for the public, I'm going to give a little background. This is a proposed rule change to our rules of procedure for the Denver City Council. And it's going to sound like inside baseball of the staff meeting that you never want to attend on a monday morning in your own office about procedure and how things work. But trust me, underneath it all are important principles of separation of powers and oversight and transparency. So there are important principles here. We currently adopt contracts that are above $500,000 by ordinance in the city and county of Denver. An ordinance takes two readings. It happens on a monday night and then it goes for a second reading on the next Monday night meeting. That process takes the time that it takes two weeks, but it also involves a requirement to publish that ordinance afterwards. There is a proposal on our agenda later, and that is Council Bill 371 that I have also called out from our clerk and recorder, Debra Johnson, that was heavily influenced by our city attorney's office, which proposes us changing that, that when we see a contract worth more than a half million dollars, the city council would adopt it in a one reading resolution rather than an ordinance. Their goal is to save money by not having to publish the resolution in a newspaper and print newspaper, believe it or not. And also to save the time delay that both the two readings and the publishing takes so that business of the city can move faster, that we can be efficient with your taxpayer dollars. So that proposal came and it has now been heard in committee four times, technology and services, chaired by Councilwoman Ortega Finance Committee. And then we also discussed it at our City Council Operations meeting, which is our staff meeting. So what that conversation entailed was a real interest from members of the committee that I heard speaking out, that they were interested in the efficiencies of trying to save some time and money, but that contracts are one of those animals that tend to come to us a little bit last minute in terms of the final language that we often hear concerns from the public or even from sometimes employees who are acting a little bit as whistleblowers at the very last minute. And what happens right now in a two reading system is if I get those questions at 3:00 on a monday, I can ask some questions at the city council meeting, but then I can also spend the next week investigating before the final reading. I can ask for more data and who's held the contract in the past? Performance rates, things like that. So I can really make sure that I'm comfortable by the time I vote for it. On the second reading, if we get those kind of last minute concerns and we only have one shot, it's much more difficult for us as a council to investigate. Right? There's not a lot of time. And I wish we lived in a world where people always knew about things early in the process and could give us weeks of notice that they saw some contract was moving through the system. And there's a question we should ask, but we know human nature doesn't work that way. Oftentimes it takes something being on that council agenda for the public to really know that it's important. So in the course of this discussion, a compromise. This is my attempt at making a compromise. I am not comfortable getting rid of that two reading system without some counterbalance way to make sure that we can spend the extra time we need to doing due diligence just in case we have to. So this rule change, which is what we'll be voting on first, actually allows a member of council to request a delay of a contract until the next regular meeting one time. So basically it makes it the same time period we have now, which is for, you know, the resolution would be up one night, you would request a delay and then it would be heard at the next regularly scheduled council meeting, which is typically one week away except when we have a holiday. So that proposal, I'm calling it out now because I need to know as an individual whether this rule change passes to know how I'm going to vote on that other change. So if this rule change passes, I will feel comfortable changing the way we adopt contracts. If this rule change does not pass, I will not be comfortable with having a change to how we approve contracts. So I'm bringing it out now so we can vote on it. We can kind of debate. I'm the two are very connected, so we may end up talking a little bit about the impetus at this time, but the vote will happen later. The actual change in procedure. So with that, I will encourage my colleagues to please vote yes on this rule change. And if if there are any questions with with the president's permission, I am happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Connie Katzman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say a couple of words in favor of this. I think the the principal move that we're making here is taking something that we approve hundreds and hundreds of contracts every year. And most of them are completely uncontroversial. And yet we submit each and every one of them to the double scrutiny of a two hearing process. So we can make absolutely sure that we're in agreement with something over which there is no controversy. So it makes sense that we would be speeding that process up, saving time and money and getting our contracts executed more quickly so that the people's money is on the street and doing what they asked for it to be doing. But occasionally there is something very occasionally that needs a little extra scrutiny. And I think this proposition here is allowing us to speed everything up across the board. But if something needs more scrutiny, it's easy for a council person to say, this is one that I think we need to look at a little bit more and so be supporting this. Thank you, councilman. It in your other comments for 61. I would just made the comment. I absolutely understand the reason for the clerk and recorder bringing forward the changes that she wants to do. And I absolutely understand why council members want to ensure that there's a mechanism in place for them to be able to call it a question or even possibly delay the problem, delay the process. The one concern that I have is this is a little bit different than anything that we've done before, is that in our parliamentary procedures, it's a majority rules council. This resolution before us allows one individual, if there's something on the body right here at the chambers to be voted on, one individual can delay the process and grant it is only for one week if there's a holiday or something quirky. It could be too. But from a philosophical standpoint, I think that that's not something that I am comfortable moving forward with. So I would prefer that there would be another way that we can move forward to meet this goal of making sure that council members have the opportunity to be heard without having this, in my, my opinion , dynamic shift in our procedure. So that's the only reason I will be voting no. I think there could be a different way to do it. But if council moves forward, we certainly do. Councilman Lopez, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate the comments my colleagues have had before me. I, too, am all about wanting to see efficiency. Those of us who govern during the recession, that's all it was. It was. Where do we cut? How can we do it faster and less expensive? And there are some things that, you know, we have to stomach and swallow, especially during the recession. Some things that we did not like doing. Not hiring of firefighters. Not hiring police. Not being able to keep library hours up. We're no longer in that. That doesn't mean we got to go back and not be lean anymore. But there's just some areas that I think that it may seem tenuous. It may seem. Not efficient. But it's we're also in government and these are the people's dollars that that we have and that we are stewards of and all of these contracts. And this is a very huge power that we have when we represent our districts and we make sure that these contracts are fair, that they're just and, you know, very few and far between. We have problematic contracts. When you see contracts that come through our desks, hundreds, thousands come through, and only a handful of them probably give us any kind of headache. Right. And I worry about those ones that do give us headaches. I think about being on this dais when I think it was in 2000, seven or eight, not 28, when I was first elected. And this body had decided to increase the threshold at which we would see contracts from the airport come to our desks. And believe me, even after that, we had problematic contracts, especially at the airport. I think I think both you and I are faces here in the paper. And there was a lot of mudslinging going back and forth over these contracts. But did I think it was the right thing to call in the contract? Absolutely. Did we allow folks to come to the table? Absolutely. But it's because of that. And I want to make sure that we are not in our quest for efficiency, that we are not hurting our transparency, and we are not hurting our opportunity to make sure things are looked at with a fine through it, with a fine tooth comb. And I think that's that's why I'm not very comfortable about it when the committee meetings was kind of undecided. I do appreciate my my colleague, Councilwoman Kenney, to my friend who has tried to find this middle ground as this contract, as this resolution is right now. I can't support that. I don't think it's good government not trying to err on the side of bureaucracy or slowly ness here. Just want an extra week. That extra week could mean jobs, it could mean opportunities, it could mean community benefits. It could mean that we stopped a disaster from happening and making more headlines. Right. So in a negative way. So I'm not in favor of it. I'm not very even with the opportunity to have someone. Call it out. I just it puts it puts that person in a hard spot. Right. And I think it's it's extra helpful to have it come through to. We have bills come through twice. So thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. Like Councilman Lopez, I was initially reticent, I mean, going back almost six years when I served on a process committee on speeding up contracts to go this route. Although I have to say, I'm not one of the people who has called out contracts throughout my time on council. And a lot of times when they have been called out, I may not have voted the same way or had the same concerns as my colleagues. But I do believe that with this rule change, which is what we're voting on right now, that we have built in a safeguard. If a contract is delayed for a week so that one of us, even if it's just one, can get information. I believe while majority rules, minority interests always need information. And when we don't have that information, we should have it. So I think we've got a safeguard in there. If this is delayed, it's going to take no longer than the to reading bill. So, Councilman Herndon, I feel like even when we call a bill off of consent, that gives us more time and that can be done by one council member. So I think in pursuit of information that a minority position is important, even if it doesn't align directly with it with the position I may have. Secondly, in terms of council's power, which I as I said, like Councilman Lopez, I was really worried about because council fought hard to review contracts in the eighties. But again. We have this ability to say, wait a minute, I didn't get enough information. And even when you see them come through on consent, I said to the clerk and recorder, this may mean we pull more contracts off of consent and send them to committee before they ever get to council. So if there's a problem and you've seen a trend, perhaps at the airport of something that. That you're concerned about. You can say, hey, this one, we better get some more information on even before it gets to the one reading resolution. You still don't get enough. You can delay it again. So I think we have the safeguards built in. I did give this a lot of thought. But I think it's all there and I'm comfortable with it. Thank you, Councilman Rob, Gotham City, Tribeca. Thank you, Mr. President. Just one quick point of information. I did not make this clear. This rule change is written in such a way that it only goes into effect if the later bill passes. So for my colleague, Councilman Lopez, I respect that. Even with the rule change, you can't get there on the later bill. But I would still ask for your vote on this rule change so that it's there if it does pass. But you can be assured that this rule change does not take effect if the later bill fails to pass. It just it only applies if contracts are ever approved by resolution. It has no effect whatsoever if the later bill fails. So it is it is a possible scenario to vote for the rule change and vote against the procedural ordinance change. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Neville, you back up. Thank you, Mr. President. And just I want to make sure I have all this straight in my own head. So. Council Bill 371 on introduction on page nine is the bill that would allow City Council to approve contracts with a one reading resolution just by virtue of our procedure handling resolutions before bills on introduction or final consideration . Councilwoman Conscious Resolution Changing our rules would be amending Council Bill 371 on our ability to approve contracts with a one reading resolution. Correct. Thank you, Mr. President. I wouldn't call it a mending, but impacts. Correct. It does not change the language of that bill. It just it's written in such a way that it goes into effect only if that later bill passes. Got it. Sorry. No, thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Ever, Councilman Lopez? You betcha. I guess part of my question was answered and during that exchange. But Councilwoman Khanna, I definitely understand the scenario for me. Like I said, just to reiterate, it's about. It's about good government. Yes. You want to be efficient, but we also want to have a magnifying glass and everything that we do. And also, because things aren't equal, contracts are very coveted things in this city. And when you're in, you're in. And not very many people are in, and especially not women and especially not minorities. And there's a lot of folks who are if you let's just say that, you know, it requires some extra eyes on it to ensure fairness. And, sure, that these things are better, ensure that the process is right and sure that it was fair. And that's that's where I'm coming with this contracts. One of the main powers of city council is making sure that we are counting all those coins and that coin curse of this coin coin purse of the cities. So I don't want to relinquish any of that as a legislative branch. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. In the comments for 61 c none. Madam secretary, roll call. Can each lemon lopez no Montero. Pass. Nevett i Ortega I rob i Brooks Brown. I. Montero I. Well, actually this was the rule for 61. Yeah, we're voting on for 61. The rule first. Can each rule first. Yes, I messed up. I'm sorry. That's supposed to be a yes. Okay. Well, correct. Okay. Go ahead. What? We can withdraw your vote. I got it. This is the first time I had to do it. That's pretty nifty. Okay. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, close. Please call to announce the results. Thanks. Nine eyes one day. Nine eyes one day for 61 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, you ante up the next one, which should be Bill's introduction. 400. Councilwoman Greenwich. What would you like for us to do with this? Thank you. I really called out 404 oh one is a package and I do not believe I need to put them on the floor for a vote. Just a comment. All right. Go right ahead. Mr. President, these bills are extensions of our. I'm sorry. I'm flipping to them. Of our photo radar contracts. So 400 is for our photo red light program, and 401 is for our speed enforcement program. There is no shortage of interest in photo enforcement in the state of Colorado and among our constituents. And I've I've shared these comments previously from the dais. This is an extension of an existing contract. This contract was due to be rebid. And we put that bidding on hold because the legislature was having a debate about whether this would be a possibility for local governments or not. So I do not like some of the terms in our current contract. I do not like the signage that we use to let people know that photo enforcement is occurring. The signs. If our goal is to deter speeding or to deter people from running red lights than our signage, letting folks know that they are under surveillance and in an enforcement zone should be much more prominent than it is. We should have people we have speech trailers that tell you how fast you are going. And then we have red light cameras that are speed cameras that catch you for going too fast. But we do not use them together. So what you don't do is drive by and see, oh, I was going 42 in the 35. You don't see it while it's happening, which leads people to not trust the level that they were that they were cited for. So I believe we need to have simultaneous education while we're doing enforcement. You should see that you were going 42 at the moment that you are cited for going 42. So those are some of the changes. I think it's critical that we as a city explore. The other concern that I have is how the revenue is used. We have heard concerns about whether this is a revenue generator. I don't believe it is. I believe it's a safety program. But the way that we can demonstrate that to the public is to designate the funds for pedestrian safety. And we have a great need for all kinds of intersection safety improvements in this city. It would be no, it would be not difficult in my mind at all to designate these dollars for those particular uses so the public can see how we are using any money raised through citations specifically for safety. So those are the changes that I believe must be made. And I am voting for this extension tonight for the very last time. I will never vote to extend this existing contract with these existing terms again, and I will never vote for another contract or another red light contract that doesn't include changes that involve education and deterrents and linking funds for safety. Those are three things that I think are really important. There may be others that we need to consider in light of the, you know, state legislatures interest in this topic. But for me, those are kind of the deal breakers. So I will be voting for these tonight. But I wanted to raise the awareness of my colleagues that I think we need to play an active role in the policy discussion regarding how the new contracts are bid and the way that we as a city approach this topic. We need to be responsive to the feedback we've heard, which is if our goal is deterrence, we need to design the contract with education and deterrence in mind. Right now, they're very difficult to see, and it's more of a surprise that they can't really deter behavior if you don't see it. So those are my suggestions for the next contract and I look forward to being hopefully engaged in the RFP process. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. So that was her comment and I see no others for 400 or four one. So if councils are right, we will go to 371 court how about councilmembers Ortega and Kenny now? Councilman Ortega I believe you have it for a purpose of amendment. Councilwoman Kenny, did you have something as well? I'll pass. All right. So you need it out for. Absolutely. Councilman Nevitt, will you please put 371 on the floor? Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 371 series of 2015 be placed on be ordered published.