Health Safety Education and Services - Regular Meeting

Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Health and Safety Committee with Denver City Council.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 3rd, 2026. Well, the green light just came on again. Welcome everyone to the June 3rd, 2026 meeting of Denver City Council's Health and Safety Committee. My name is Kevin Flynn and I am the vice chair of the committee filling in for the chair who is absent today. And we have only one item, and it's a briefing from our Denver Fire Department on the response to the audit findings. And so before we start and introduce Chief Fulton, I'd like to ask, I'm vamping for other members to get here.

Sorry, I'm very sorry.

For other members to get here, let's have introductions by members of council. Let me start to my left.

Good morning, everyone. Serena Gonzalez-Cucheras, I'm one of the council members at large. Good morning, Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

Hi, and we have one member online. It was Council Pro Tem. Go ahead.

Good morning. Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Thank you very much. Chief Desmond Fulton, the Denver Fire Department, the floor is yours.

Thank you, sir. The Denver Fire Department went through an audit related to our IGAs. So Denver Fire provides fire and emergency response to four different areas. We provide this for Skyline. We provide this service for Sheridan, the city of Sheridan. We provide this service for the city of Inglewood. the City of Glendale. We met with the auditor for a final presentation roughly a month ago and I wanted to go over the findings. I'm sure you're all well aware you guys had an audit somewhat similar last year and it's not as easy to express the totality of things when you're limited to 140 characters. So I wanted to take the time to ensure that you had a chance to ask any questions and and ensure that there's clarity when it comes to our ability to respond not only to these IGAs, but into the city county of Denver. So with that, thank you. Yes, sir. Introduction and background, Denver Fire has had IGAs in place for 20 plus years. Again, as I stated, Englewood, Glendale, Sheridan, and Skyline Protection Fire District, these are all different links. Most of these were in place prior to my tenure, but that said, we have had a renegotiation with the city of Sheridan and with Skyline very recently. On that, as I proceed forward, I will go into the specifics of the lengths of these terms, the monetary components related to these terms, and then what the recommendations were from the auditor's office and how we plan to comply with the recommendations. Denver Fire Department IGAs, Englewood, just to give you some perspective, the revenue that we generate from Englewood providing services is $7.3 million a year. We have a 3% escalator on that, and that term goes through December 31st of 2035. Glendale, the revenue is $3 million, again with a 3% escalator on that. Fire protection services go through the term of 1231 of 38. Sheridan, the revenue is $2.6 million. A little bit different on this one. There are some different escalators built in. It's a 3% in 26, a 4% in 27, and a 5% in 2028. And that'll be up for renewal again in December 31 of 2028. And finally, Skyline, which is very different. It's Mills-based. Skyline is not a city. It's really a neighborhood that we protect. And it's $445,000 was the revenue generated and that is reviewed every three years. So we meet with their fire marshal, with their board and we review that. If there's no questions there, I'm going to move forward. Okay, so these are some maps to kind of put in perspective of where these firehouses are located with these IGAs. So Station 5 is located in the heart of Glendale, and as you can see, it's completely surrounded by the city and county of Denver. In Glendale, to put it in perspective, there was roughly 987 emergency response calls that we responded to in the city of Glendale. The station 36, which is in the city of Sheridan, you could see that borders Denver on many sides, and it borders Englewood to the east. Again, that is at 4101 South Federal Boulevard, and that is the sole firehouse that provides services to the city of Sheridan. And then in Englewood, we've got multiple stations there. We've got station 37 and then we've got station 38. And those provide services in the city of Englewood. Now with these maps, the intentionality behind this is so you can have an idea visually of not only the location of these firehouses, but truly comprehend how they respond. So these aren't dedicated just to Englewood. Sheridan or Glendale. These resources come into Denver quite frequently, and I'll go into the percentages, but you can see Station 37 and then 38, for example, really clusters around multiple council districts, and these companies, even though they're based out of Englewood, would respond to your council districts. Audit findings. Representatives from Englewood, Glendale, Sheridan, Skyline, Protection stated they have established positive working relationships with Denver Fire and they're very satisfied with our services provided. To kind of put things into perspective, I meet with representatives, i.e. the city managers, city council, their board of directors, at a minimum yearly. And there has been many times where we have taken the time to sit down and present to their city council mayors and answer any questions. As far as the city managers, we have a relationship to where I could pick up a phone or they can text and we really have that personal relationship, which really makes these IGAs very valuable to them because they appreciate our services and our response. Hello, Councilman. You as well. And very valuable to the city and county of Denver because it complements our emergency services. So we had multiple recommendations. As a matter of fact, all the recommendations I agreed to. And I told the auditor, I was very frank. He asked me, he's like, well, it's not very common that everyone agrees to everything. I told him, auditor, I've been married for 30 years and it's easier just to say yes and smile and shake your head. And in these, there was a lot of recommendations that I feel are very relevant and I think they're very achievable. As a matter of fact, I'm confident that we can achieve most of these by July 1st of this year. So the first one was to develop and document a formal renewal process. This is something that was not passed along, but I completely shoulder this responsibility. I can be better at documentation and I can be better at formulating this process. So we have designated the requirements of what this looks like, designated roles and responsibilities, documentation and how it will be created, and we've already started this because we just actually met with leadership from the City and County of Englewood, So this is something that we agree to. And moving forward, Denver Fire will be much better when it comes to this recommendation on documentation for renewals. Next recommendation was to develop a plan to revise agreements as necessary. And again, this may seem very simplistic. But in the end, I think it's something that's minimal. I think this is something the auditor pointed out that very much should be taking place. And moving forward, we will implement this recommendation as well. recommendations, and these are all focused on financials. The first one is to establish a process for tracking costs. They brought forth a lot of things related to repairs of the fire stations. Now, contractually, these municipalities are responsible for repairs of all the costs. There are many times where something breaks and it's just easier for us to buy a part. Our firefighters are very talented. They fix the problem. And what we haven't done is been as good as we can at turning those receipts in for reimbursement. A lot of times it may seem simplistic. It's a $10 part. By the time you go through all the avenues, is it worth all the people hours? In the end, you know, we can go back and forth on that, but it is my responsibility to ensure that we're spending the dollars of the taxpayers and I'm being fiduciarily responsible. So moving forward, as we have repairs in these firehouses, we will do better, I will do better at tracking these and ensuring that we're taking these costs and getting reimbursed for those costs related. Another recommendation, financial focused, was developing a procedure for cost-benefit assessment. We've actually done this. This assessment came from the latest one of the Sheridan negotiations. We would never go into these blindly. We look at assessments when it comes to finances. Later in the slides, I will break down with you what I'm looking at through my lens as a fire chief versus someone that is an accountant, because I view it quite differently. But in the end, we absolutely should be doing cost benefit analysis as we look at these. One thing to take into account is a lot of these were established decades ago. So moving forward, it gives us a chance to look forward and have a better plan when we are up for renewal. Reclamation 1.4 was include important elements in future cost benefit analysis. And this is something that I 100% agree with. There are a lot of things that it's easy to second guess, but moving forward in the future, I think there should be levers in place. If you have inflation that is extraordinary, you have to be able to take account for that. The cost of engines and trucks has nearly doubled in seven years. We would not have known that 15 years ago, so I'm not pointing fingers. But as we move forward, these are things we need to build into these, ensuring that it's not costing taxpayers of Denver money and it's coming from the coffers of these municipalities that we're serving. Another financial focus is establishing and implement a process for tracking payments. No excuses. Our finance team has shrunk as the city has shrunk, but the bottom line is this is our responsibility. We do track payments, but we've had delays in payments, and it may be three, five, seven days. With that, you know, In essence, as an accountant, nothing's acceptable if it's late. So we will implement and build something that can track day to day and we will have checks and balances in place moving forward where if there is something late, we will know who to call, who to email to ensure that they're in compliance with the agreement of the contract. Another financial focus is conditions for late payments. As I stated earlier, we've had instances where they've been three to five days late. We haven't charged them for the late payments. It's not a significant amount of money that we would charge. I'm more of a relationship person. I would rather text someone and say, hey, by the way, did you know you're delayed on this? But again, it's my responsibility to be responsible with the funds and ensure that we are getting those late fees, especially when we're in financial straits as we are right now. as a city. Another financial focus is develop and document a process for identifying expenses. In my eyes, this is very related to one of the earlier recommendations. This, to me, we could get more into the weeds of what it costs when it comes to, an example would be not only staffing with 15 firefighters at a particular firehouse or fire company, but what does it cost when we clean their bunking gear to get rid of the contaminants and carcinogens that are in there, carcinogens that are in there, So being more in the weeds of what does it really cost when it's said and done to operate a fire company. Develop policies and procedures for monthly reconciliation. This has already been done. This is implemented. This is checks and balances with an accounting. So this has already been completed. These are now speaking to joint advisory boards. We meet with leadership every single year from all these different cities. In the contracts, it speaks to an advisory board and who makes up the board, what the purpose of the board is. And to be quite frank with you, we haven't had a need for this. If there is an issue, the manager or council person calls me or we call them and we fix it. We get together every year and we go over run reviews. Every day we give them a list of what calls took place in their city. If there's a significant incident, I will text or phone call the city manager or other people so they're aware of what's going on. But in the end, it is in the contract, so it's something that we need to be better at. We started this with Sheridan and we ensured on who is going to be representing their joint advisory board on their end, who will represent DFD. So we're very clear. So moving forward, it's in the contract. We will adhere to that and ensure that we have those boards in place and the people more importantly are aware that they're part of that board. Again, this is speaking to advisory boards on when they need to be met or updated. And again, this is just a matter of language. This is a matter that we've already taken care of with Sheridan and moving forward as we continue to meet with Englewood and Glendale. We will update those as well. And again, all of these will be implemented by July 1st. This I want to speak to, and I think this is very important to paint a totality of the view from a thousand feet. This is a five year average. So starting off with Englewood, we have two firehouses in Englewood. Of these firehouses, 100% of the calls aren't in Englewood. 12.5% of the calls actually are in Denver. So we're benefiting 12.5% of the time from these engines and trucks coming into Denver to help augment Denver's needs. Glendale, 76% of the calls are in Denver. So if we didn't have that firehouse in Glendale, we're missing out on a significant amount of calls. As a matter of fact, it was over 1,000 calls that were in the city and county of Denver. Shared in 55% of the culls are in Denver or in Englewood. So if we didn't have these IGAs in place, if we didn't have these firehouses, we would have to look at, in essence, building firehouses because these serve your council districts in the southern part of the city. So these are vital. These relationships are vital. And the way that we can complement Denver, we're serving the needs of not only their cities, but in my view, we're really gaining from these contracts and these IGAs because it benefits our citizens.

I think you said that 55% of the calls were into Denver. Or Englewood?

Actually, that should say not. 55% of the calls are in Denver. Or Englewood? Yes. From the Sheridan house? Yes. So 12.5% of Englewood is into Denver. 76% of Glendale's calls are into Denver. And then 55% of Englewood are into Denver. The word not should not be there. Correct, yeah. Sorry for the confusion. This is a cost analysis summary. And on this here, you know, as an accountant, I'm not an accountant, but they're looking at it as, well, if it costs this much to pay your firefighters, it costs this much for roll-up, this is what it costs for to staff that firehouse. I look at it a little bit differently, and I'll start off on the right with Glendale. Well, if the percentages of calls of that, of Glendale, if 55% is based in Denver, we shouldn't be looking at 100% of this cost. There's a cost that should go over to Denver. So if you look at our personnel costs in 25 and you add in equipment supplies, which would be consumables, you back away the 76% of the calls that are coming into Denver, you've got a total expense of $746,000, thus a net occurrence of finances coming into the city of $2.19 million. Inglewood is a little bit less because it's only 15.5% that aren't in Inglewood, but it's the same analysis. The only thing different is the personnel overtime is 5,000 because it's two companies and not one. And then equipment, you double the cost for equipment and indirect supplies. We do have a contract with Denver Health. We have two ambulances that run out of these firehouses. That's paid for by Denver Health as part of this IGA, so that doesn't cost Denver. You take the total expenses, but if you back away the percentages of the calls that come into Denver, we are still at a net total income coming into the coffers of the city and county of Denver as well. And then finally, Sheridan, again, you've got a fixed personnel cost of 15 folks on an apparatus. Equipment and indirect supplies, you back away the 55%. Non-Sheridan based calls, total expense of 1.4. We've got a net value of 2.5 coming in. We're netting 1.14 to the city. Skyline is a little bit different. It's mills based. So Skyline, it's a set amount with a minimum. And that can obviously change on the mills. But the estimate for 25 ended up being 454. And we kind of keep it consistent there because that seems to be where that's been coming in each and every single year. So, you know, it's easy to look at something and formulate a cost, but the true cost is not just the finances, right? This is important, obviously, but in the end is how do these four companies, these engines and trucks, what do they do for Denver? They do a significant amount. If they weren't there, we would have to be looking at, are we gonna build a $20 million firehouse? Are we gonna be okay with response times being 10 minutes instead of five minutes? Those are real questions. And with these IGAs, it's really valuable in the way, not only is it bringing money in, but it allows us to have three additional, four additional firehouses and these additional companies to complement the services for the citizens of Denver. So with that, I'll take a pause because I'm sure there's going to be a few questions. If you could build a new firehouse for $20 million, you could be our CMGC.

Let me welcome Councilman Cashman to the meeting. Thank you. And we have questions up with Councilwoman Sawyer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chief. This is really great. I think Councilmember Cashman and I border Glendale, both of our council districts border Glendale. And we already know what you just told us, which is that the value of that Glendale house to Denver is unspeakably important. It is. It is. it allows for response times that are so much faster than they would otherwise allow for. And that is what matters to our residents. So, Cashman, I'm just going to talk for you here for a second. It's what matters for our residents, right? And so, really appreciate that. I do really appreciate you acknowledging and agreeing with the auditor's recommendations. We've all been audited. We all know how frustrating audits can be and how they can feel somewhat unfair sometimes based on like picky things. Um, but I do, you know, appreciate you guys taking the feedback and being willing to make some changes. I'm just curious when it comes to the whole set of recommendations around the, um, The committee. I can't remember what they're called. The committees. You know, like the cross-functional committees. Why do they exist at all?

I believe they exist in case there's a point in time where you have leadership with fire, you have leadership at that municipality, and they can't seem to get along. Or if there's significant incidents where you don't have adults around the table that could come to terms and fix things. We don't have that problem. We get along great, but... I understand the intent of the language. Obviously, the only one we could have removed that from would have been Sheridan because the rest are going for quite some time still. But my guess is it was based off the fact if there are difficulties and bumps in the road, how do we come together and how are there checks and balances? We've been very fortunate because, like I stated, it's not uncommon for me to text or call one of the city managers or other people in leadership there often and just touch base. And if there's something minimal, we fix it. But to answer your question, I believe it was just in case you ran into significant issues. It was more of a formality in place for checks and balances.

Okay, that's good to know. And I guess I understand the value of that. I also struggle to see the value of it given that we don't need it and the administrative burden that comes with it, right? That is a time commitment, doing all of those minutes, getting them out to people, all the things. Like, yes, smaller with Zoom meetings than, you know, time commitment than if you had had to travel there and back regularly. But also, like... To me, it doesn't seem valuable and I know that they're written into the so you're stuck until 2038 or whatever the last is that it's written into. Um, but I just wonder whether there's a better way to do that. That is not so administrative heavy. when the need is not there for it to be administratively heavy?

Well, first, I agree with your statement and I appreciate the sentiment because I obviously felt miserably because I wasn't good at taking minutes and everything else that they're requiring of that. Absolutely, I'm the type of person, I think relationships are very valuable And if something needs done, then do it, fix it, make it happen. And I agree with you. So moving forward, that would definitely be something that we should look at the formality of it. And is the value there? Or is it just something that seems right in a contract, but the reality of it is, what are you accomplishing? So I absolutely agree with you.

Yeah, because it seems like... Something else could be written into the contract, right? Like a clause that says in the event that, you know, there is a disagreement or everyone is not on the same page. Like you, I mean, we have mediators in the city that we pay for on a contract that we send our residents to with developers to create good neighbor agreements or business owners or whatever all the time. Like it seems like there's already something that exists within the city that is in place that could manage a situation like that should it come up as opposed to, you know, this sort of like very dogmatic group of meetings and minutes and administrative stuff you got to do in the meantime when there is no problem. So I don't know.

Food for thought for the future. Duly noted and 100% agree.

Yeah, I feel that deeply. Thank you. And I want to just acknowledge, as you know, the largest fire that the city of Denver has seen in anyone's recent memory happened in District 5 in January. And I just want to first acknowledge and say thank you, because it could have been an absolute disaster. It could have spread to other properties. It could have spread throughout neighborhoods. There were evacuations throughout District 5 neighborhoods, and it didn't. And there are situational environment things that made that happen, like there wasn't a lot of wind that night, right? But also, it is because of the response of the Denver Fire Department and our partners.

Agreed.

And so I just want to acknowledge that and make it clear that something like the fire department, relationships are the thing that matters because those relationships are what you rely on when there is a disaster, like an entire building burning down that threatened neighborhoods. And those relationships came through and solved the problem and kept it from being a massive disaster. And so I just, I appreciate all of the feedback that the auditor's office gave, and I appreciate you being willing to hear it. But I also think it just has to be said, and you probably can't be the one to say it, so I'll be the one to say it. These relationships matter. I know that we're in a financial crisis and I know that auditors audit and that's what they do. But also, this is about so much more than dollars.

Agreed.

So much more than dollars. This is about the safety of our residents and literally, in the case of the fire in January in Leedsdale, our neighborhoods. And so I just think that that cannot be stated strongly or loudly enough because you can't audit relationships. There's just not a way to do it. But I also feel a little bit concerned that there's no acknowledgement of those relationships in the audit findings. So like I said, you probably can't say it, so I'm going to say it because it's real and it's true.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thanks.

I want to welcome Council President Sandoval to the meeting. And do other members have any questions at the moment? Chief, let me ask you, in your reconciliation of the cost allocations when we respond out of Sheridan to Denver or Englewood, now when we respond with the Sheridan station into Englewood, I would attribute that cost more to Englewood than to Denver. That's not a service to Denver residents, but to Englewood. So just a little, maybe a little more balance to that reconciliation might be helpful for us going forward. Sure. The second question is, are there, in these contracts, in these agreements, are there any reopeners that would allow us to revisit

Any of these provisions before their expiration, there are absolutely triggers those there's there's different things and I don't know the language specifically. So I don't want to say something that's not accurate, but there are opener clauses in the contracts that could come from either side. The one thing that, you know, I know there's been talk of, you know, is this something we should look at as a city to try to get more money? I would really caution that. And the reason being is there is a fire department to the south of us called South Metro Fire. Their budget's $33 million more than my budget with 400 less firefighters. They would love to have the opportunity to provide services to Englewood and gain two more fire stations for them. I'm sure they would love to provide them for Sheridan because they border Sheridan as well. So if we open something up, there's always, it goes to open bid and that comes potentially at a cost. They can afford things that we can't and if we lost these contracts, that would be catastrophic for the southern part of Denver. And our response times would go through the roof without these four apparatus. So that absolutely can't happen. That's why I ensure that they're happy with our service. That's why I ensure they're happy with our relationships. Because the last thing I want to do is lose them. Because in my view, we really need them as well. So we need us. They need us. We provide an incredible service for their citizens. They're very happy with what we do for them. But in the end, they really help the citizens of Denver and allow us to augment the emergency services for Denver. So that's something I would not want to look at.

Chief, it looks like from your chart, when you allocate those across those cost centers, it looks like we are not losing money. on these contracts.

Correct. That's correct. Not only are we not losing money, but if we lost these IGAs, then we would really be, then we're on the hook for paying for firehouses and for the firefighters. Does the auditor concur with that reconciliation? When they did the audit, it was more focused on process rather than response. I did not run my numbers by them, but again, their focus was more on the performance and are we following the guidelines of the contract? And there were areas that we were not, and that's why we're fixing things and we're going to be better.

Okay, well, representing part of the south end of the city and being very adjacent to Sheridan and Englewood. we're at a high district i acknowledge that that would be a that's a risk 100 and we right now are deriving benefits absolutely yes all right thank you chief um do we have any other questions council president thank you thank you chief sorry i was listening um on channel eight when i was headed over here

So to Councilwoman Sawyer's point about how in audit findings you don't talk about relationships, when City Council got audited, it went through two council leadership processes. And I thought we were going to get audited on more, like this ordinance that Councilmember Flynn initiated, do we get our contracts on time? Do we get other things on time? And what we really got dinged on was software. And we actually went through COVID, and some towers went missing. But I don't keep those towers. They go to technology services. And there were a couple of recommendations in our audit finding that actually conflicted with the charter of what our executive director does. Our executive director works at the will of all 13 council members to support city council. Our executive director doesn't look through our donation list and sign off on it because that's just not her, it's literally not prescribed that way in the charter. And so part of the audit findings are, to Councilwoman Sawyer's point, don't take into consideration the factors of safety and our accreditation that we've worked really hard to get. And with our accreditation means that we have better insurance. Our accreditation means that we have better things, which saves at the end. It's hard to put like a dollar sign around it. Let's say in a world where we did not have these IGAs, would that impact our accreditation that you all have? Because the fire times could go down in these pockets. What's the risk of... Because there was a time when we didn't have these, right?

Correct.

And so what did that look like? Would that... To me, it feels like we'd be going back in time instead of moving forward.

Councilman, that is a very valid point and I appreciate your question. Number one, we are ISO 1. We weren't always ISO 1. ISO 1 is based off of our training. It's based off of our water capabilities with our hydrants and our locations. It's based off of our staffing levels. It's based off of the amount of folks we have in service that have the ability to provide emergency medical services and fire protection. in equation to the amount of citizens that are in the city at certain times of day. It's based off our response times. We worked very hard to raise up to an ISO 1 and it's based off of everything that I just spoke to. Accreditation, we just went through reaccreditation roughly three years ago. And what that means is we're an ISO-1 accredited fire department. There's less than 140 across the country of thousands of fire departments that can state that they're ISO-1 accredited. That's based off of everything. You lose a fire company, that changes everything. It changes the response times, it changes training capabilities, it changes the matrix on how you can respond effectively. You lose four firehouses, All bets are off. So you're absolutely right. Can it change the ISO, which would affect the dollars that folks are paying for insurance? 100%. Would we lose accreditation? Probably. So it would be very impactful. And that could happen with one. We're talking with four companies here. 100%.

Yeah, so thank you. And the only reason, colleagues, I know that is because I worked at the fire department, and they were talking about accreditation, and I was like, what is this weird accreditation thing? Talk to me about that. So I don't think that these recommendations always take that into account. And one of the recommendations that we had from the auditor to city council, I took... It was painful for me to even sit at that table and really not have them understand. And I said, you do know that your recommendation is in direct violation of our charter. And the auditor was like, what? And I said, I really have to keep the city safe. As council president, I'm not going to implement a recommendation because it came from the auditor that that's in direct violation with our charter. And I feel like some of these recommendations, yes, they're procedural. And I'm glad to clean up the contract and to audit contract compliance. is a very different thing than, to Councilman Sawyer's point, auditing for relationships. It's hard to put a dollar sign on that. Like that American Express, it's priceless, right? If you get to go on a trip with your kids, you don't know exactly know how to put a price on that. So I just want to say thank you for coming to committee, and thank you for the willingness to sit down with us. Because sometimes when you're on the receiving side of those audits, You want to get through with them and you want to just say, okay, I understand. Yes, we're going to do it. It's procedural. But at the same time, there is a narrative here that had we, I remember calling Councilman Sawyer and I said, hey, had we not had that IGA, I think that whole entire neighborhood could have started on fire. And she was like, guaranteed. Because I had called you that morning and you told me how Aurora had come in and how you all played a part.

Correct.

And it was a huge puzzle piece, and no one got injured. I don't know of another fire. I started looking at fires like that. There's deaths.

Absolutely.

And other property damage, and it just didn't happen. And so you had that, and then you came out with this audit, and I was like, it didn't feel like both sides of the story were being told. So I think that's important. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right, thank you. Chief, I very much appreciate this update. It's a lot better information for me. It clarifies a lot of what I've been hearing. I really appreciate that. We have no items on consent and no other business here, so we'll be adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Good seeing you all.

Do I need to do anything here? Nope. I was going to say, if you want me... Thank you.