Health Safety Education and Services - Regular Meeting

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

Good morning and welcome to the September 2nd Health and Safety Committee meeting. My name is Darrell Watson. I'm honored to serve as the Committee Chair as well as the City Council representing all of the fine District 9. We have an action item this morning to discuss the ShotSpotter contract before we roll into the presentation. Why don't we have introductions around the room and then I'll check and see who we have online. We'll start first on our right.

Greetings. Councilman Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2.

Council Member Flora Alvarez with Lucky District 7.

Thank you both for being here. And we do have some council members online. President Romero-Campbell, are you on?

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

And Council Member Sandoval? Is Council Member Sandoval available online? If not, we'll come back into the room. Councilmember Lewis, would you like to introduce?

Hi, Chantal Lewis, District 8.

Thank you. And it appears that Pro Tem Gonzalez-Guterres is trying to get on. Is Pro Tem on? I'm just doing a check just to make sure who's available. Yes. We can see you, Pro Tem, and it looks like you're on mute.

Let me see your picture.

I'm married to an educator, so I can do a teacher pause and pause for a second. Producer, is Pro Tem on? If not, we can move on to the presenters. I'll give just one more minute.

Yes, sorry, Council Chair Watson, I'm so sorry. I'm trying to get my video to be up and running, but I am here. Thank you so much. Senator Gonzalez-Quiqueirez at large.

Thank you all for being here. And any other council members that join virtual, we'll announce them. And I'll try to join the queue by the end of the presentation. So with that, let's turn it over to our executive director, Al Gardner, for initial introduction. And then the team, obviously, that's doing the presentation, we'll turn it over to you for introductions and presentation.

Thank you, Councilman Watson. I'll allow the team to introduce themselves, if they would, before I hop in here. So we'll start with Commander Fuller.

Hi, I'm Commander Michelle Fulmer, and I'm over Equity, Diversity, and Support Bureau.

Good morning, Shanae Cummings, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Safety. I'm Celia Leach, Director of Policy and Legislation for the Department of Public Safety.

Thank you. So yeah, the only thing I would say is to kick off, Councilman, as we talk about ShotSpotter, as we keep these different elements in mind, is that we do think the ShotSpotter program is obviously one that you know, contributes a great deal. At the same time, do you think it's time to begin looking deeper at what that technology is, how it's expanded and grown? Even as you look across the United States, Denver is not the only state or not the only city that's taken a look at the program in and of itself. not through just expansion of these static microphones that are able to pick up these different shots, but the technology itself has evolved in a way that it can allow us to be a lot more dynamic, which Chief Ron Thomas and his group have been looking at for quite some time. We'll continue to take a look at and use data to have those data-informed decisions. I think also it's It's not just looking at the technology, but looking at the overall strategy about how dynamic we're able to take a look at hotspots in the city when different things are happening in different areas. It allows the police department to be more nimble and it allows us if we look at the complete cost benefit analysis to all of the software purchasing that we're doing. how can we derive the most benefit from that particular piece of software? And this is the real underpinning of what's driving this solution as well as some other things that you will see. Because at the end of the day, if the goal is to make sure that we're doing a couple things, that we're trying to be on the preventative side of crime. The second thing is we're trying to make sure that the officers in the street obviously have the most and the best tools available to them to be able to address more precisely what's happening in real time. And perhaps the third thing there is always making sure that we're collecting enough data to make sure that we're extrapolating as much value for the city as we can out of that software. So everything that you're going to hear today is basically underpinned with those things in mind. Yes, the technology is good, but it's evolved, and how do we evolve with it? The second thing is how are we able to make sure that we're gaining as much value out of a particular purchase that we are? And the third piece is how do we continue to evolve also with the shape and needs of the city, even with our drawdown of our current ShotSpotter system?

And, Director, before you turned over for your presentation, I'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge Chief Thomas was in the room and Commander O'Rourke. Thank you all both for being here. I know you're available for questions. And, sir, after the presentation, I'll ask if you wouldn't mind making a few comments. But turn it back over.

Thank you, Councilman. I'm used to seeing him sitting up here. That's why I'm giving him a break today. So, yes, thank you for that. Hopefully that made sense. I'll turn it over now to Commander Fulmer.

Councilmember, so today on the agenda we have the overview of the ShotSpotter, the current contract terms, and then additionally the requested contract amendment information. So ShotSpotter. ShotSpotter is an acoustic surveillance technology. that uses microphones to detect, locate, and alert police to gunfire. The company that supplies this technology to the Denver Police Department is Sound Thinking. So our contract terms, the current ones, are the scope of work. Sound Thinking Incorporated provides wide area gunshot detection, location, and forensic analysis service for the Denver Police Department. ShotSpotter is a cloud-based subscription-managed service with warranty, repair, maintenance, and support services on all of its systems. The contractor provides equipment and services related to the high-tech audio equipment, which also includes trained acoustic specialist and acoustic analyst capable of classifying outdoor incidents as either gunfire or other loud sounds not classified as gunfire, i.e. fireworks, that kind of thing. For those incidents classified as gunfire, the contractor provides pinpoint locations of the gunfire in that service area.

So our current contract term is, it was from January 1 of 22 and ends on December 31 of 26. This was a formal RFP, and so this is the end of our five-year term. During that five-year term, the current contract amount was $4.5 million. What we are targeting now is just to better align our deployment. Also, as part of our wind down, we have requested a reduction in services. That reduction in services now will move our last year of this agreement from $853,000 contract request down to $706,000. It covers 2.15 square miles and that equates to approximately a $147,000 reduction. We were asked a question about how much of this is general fund versus grant funded. And so of the $706,000, there is a grant from JAG. What is Jack's there for? Federal Jack that we have $324,000 off of. Any questions?

Saying that's a presentation?

Yes. It's all about the contract amendment.

You all are fast and concise. Producer, if you don't mind pulling down the presentation. Chief Thomas just wanted to give you an opportunity, if there are a few words that you wanted to share before the questions come in. And for our city council members, the queue is open. If you'd like to join the queue, let me know and then I will add you. Thank you, Chief von Thomason.

A lot to add. I think the Director really covered it. I think this is really our effort moving towards being much more nimble and better and faster and being much more data informed.

Thank you so much, Chief. We have a building queue. We have Council Pro Tem Gonzalez Gutierrez and then Councilmember Flynn.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Director Gardner, Esther, Sinead, everybody for bringing this through. I did ask for this to be called to be pulled down off of consent just because this was a change that was happening. And I think there had not been a lot of information attached initially. So I'd appreciate you all doing this and also taking the time to to meet with me in my office ahead of time to try to get ahead of some of the questions and and things that might come up and so I did as I said in our in our briefing and again appreciate the time that you've taken that I would perhaps even follow-up questions but also just wanting to make sure that we have the discussion here during committee. And so I wanted to ask, you know, Director Gardner, we talked about during our one on one, we talked about the you know, the low yield of this technology and the cost benefit analysis going into this decision and that there's a decision right now to not renew this technology. Could you like speak to that and any of the data that you may have gathered since then to speak to the efficacy of ShotSpotter compared to DPD response to 911 calls involving gunfire? So I know that when we spoke, I had asked

you know is there you know how soon would you all be looking to find a different vendor or other types of technology and so just wanted to touch on all of that particular issue yes thank you uh council pro tem i'll start with the last question and then probably bring up another member of uh pd to come in and talk about the the data collection piece um and i'll say like i mentioned to you 27 i fully intend It's to be a year to take a look at proof of concept, to take a look at how any type of RFP would need to be arranged and needs to be arranged and go out to explore and take a look at those technologies that are out there that fit the needs of the city. And as I mentioned also that as we look at the different fits and look at the different technology that's available and those tools, allow data to inform uh even the rfp uh full the full rfp process as we're looking at it making sure that it meets the city's specific needs so starting from the bottom there i started from your last question 27 this next year don't intend to make a purchase of anything new as much as it has taken this time to gather feedback look at data ensure that the RFP is correct, ensure that we've gathered concerns or thoughts from council, from community and other partners as we go about and go the path of what comes next. Because as I mentioned, this is not a period as much as it is a comma because the technology itself is still viable. It's about how we use that technology. Can we be using it better? And if it's addressing gaps, and that's another thing in 2027 is we're taking a look at with the concept, it will also inform our gap analysis in terms of what we were able to do really good with it and what things we can improve upon. And I'm gonna invite the Chief Thomas, our commander former FJ Wood to talk about the data piece. I know yesterday when I mentioned it to you, I told you that we're still collecting a lot of that, but I think some of that we actually may have and be able to share with you, so.

Thank you, Councilwoman. I would add to that that the current technology and the placement of that current technology is based upon data that is somewhere between five and ten years old. And so I think that there is a need to collect newer, fresher, better data to determine our deployment strategies. I would, I understand what you mean by low yield and certainly We don't have large numbers of arrests and identifications of victims that have been shot relative to ShotSpotter, but we do have high yield in terms of recovering shell casings and having that as very crucial evidence. in being able to identify patterns and things like that. And so as we recognize this as a safety solution for reducing pattern gun violence, I do think that we will look to the future in a way to be much more nimble and precise rather than blanket the city in 15 miles worth of technology.

Tim, do we still have you?

Yeah, thank you so much. I really appreciate. Sorry, go ahead.

No, no, just say that answers your question.

Yeah, I think so. You know, I, I really appreciate. You know, the thoughtfulness, I guess, in this, in this respect, and the fact that we're not just jumping straight into another either another technology or even another vendor that we're taking a step back and saying, okay, let's reevaluate, you know, what is what is the. the return here and is it producing what we need it to produce and is the data showing us that it's being effective and that it's accurate, right? And I think those are things that need to be considered. And I will just say, I think the only other questions that I have is wanting to maybe get, and Chief, this might also be for you, so I apologize, I know you sat down. But what has the impact of ShotSpotter on Police 9, what has been the impact of ShotSpotter on Police 911 response times? So we understand that the prioritization of shot spotter alerts has been changed in the last few years from the top priority calls to not, unless there is a corresponding 911 call. So was this change due to the impact on police response times?

It was indeed. And so currently, unless there are three or more shots that are fired, or if it's in an identified persistently violent hotspot, or if there is a corresponding 911 call, we're not sending officers to those calls because we understand that there's less value and opportunity responding to those lower yield calls.

Okay. And then I'll just round it out with my last question. So I know some of my colleagues may have some questions around if, and I know Director Gardner, when we met yesterday, you said, you know, you're not looking to pursue an RFP at this time, but just curious if there are any vendors that have come forward that might be considered for some type of future RFP or have the technology that you think might apply for an RFP?

Yeah, I can, from my perspective in my seat, I don't know off the top of my head what vendor could potentially be out there. I definitely haven't, I haven't been reached out to by any vendors at this point. I mean, I would assume that myself as well as Chief Chalmers and DPD are completely open to as many different vendors are out there at this point. But right now I don't, we don't have any, I don't have any from the DOS department that's been actively, so.

Okay. Would you share that as far as like, of course I know when an RFP happens there are rules around that. I'm just thinking that if there are vendors that you become aware of that have this type of technology, it would be great just to have a heads up on what the vendors are.

Sure, and definitely as we begin to round that corner and kind of kick things off, completely make you aware and keep your office and council aware of what's out there. It's very plausible that we could reach out to this vendor. I won't take that completely off the table. It's just hard to really say without any degree of certainty. No, we won't talk to this one. No, we won't talk to that one as much as it is open to all things right now and see what fits the city the best.

Perfect. Thank you so much. And thank you again for presenting that information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Pro Tem. First, I'd like to acknowledge Council Member Sandoval and Council Member Torres. And in the queue, we have Council Member Flynn, Council Member Lewis, and Council Member Torres. Thanks. Remember Flynn? Wait for that.

Thank you. How much of this decision is related to saving $147,000 in this budget year that's very tight versus the usefulness of the technology? That doesn't seem like a whole lot of money. Is 18% not of the total contract? It's an 18% reduction in the annual payment, correct? Correct. Okay, so it's not 18% of 4.5 million. That is correct.

And so I can speak to at least the contractual pieces of it. I know the Denver Police Department has been working with the vendor sound thinking just for a reduction in the coverage area. And that was based off of all the communications that Chief Thomas spoke to earlier. That decision was not finalized in that negotiation phase until early spring. being April or May. And so that decision of that $147,000 was then made upon that and us doing this reduction in the contract amount.

We haven't already cut back. Now, have they have they cut back the area?

We have cut back the services in the area.

And I think councilman, I mean, was that the only reason? No, because to your point, it may not be a lot of money, but I think these days. every dime we can find is a lot of money. But at the same time, it was a factor. I think it was a factor that I know Chief Thomas and his team, as well as Department of Safety have been looking at for some time, how do we do it, as well as a lot of impact, input and feedback from city council, community and others. I mean, so it was a factor, but it was not the main factor. Yeah. Okay.

Well, I'm very concerned about losing this capability. because the input I get from people is they want to see more of it. If you asked people around Denver, they'd say they like this because I don't like relying on 911 calls. My experience in 11 years now has been when people think they hear gunshots, they don't call. In fact, some of the material you gave us, you said, well, we can use 911 calls and witness reports of people who see cars or license plates. No one sees that. No one who hears gunshots in a neighborhood sees that, and they don't call. Every time someone says to me, Councilman, why don't we, I heard gunfire. I said, well, did you call it into 911? Well, no, I didn't, because I couldn't tell where it was. I wasn't sure. So I didn't take action. In fact, the data we were shown, the last presentation we had was at 86, so 13, only 13%. of shot spotter alerts had a 911 call associated with it. And that's very disturbing that more than 86, almost 87% of gunfire reports on this system, no one called. We found people who were injured and we saved their lives because they were shot. And no one called 911, but ShotSpotter allowed us to find them. So I'm very concerned about having a window of time where we don't have this capability. And so maybe I should ask Chief Thomas, when we don't send an officer because there wasn't a 911 call, 86% of the cases, or there's not multiple rounds being fired, there's only two shots instead of three, do we eventually go out? It's not the highest priority, but does an officer then go out and look for shell casings for the NIBIN's database?

Yes, if I understand your question. So, you know, you're right that the national average in terms of the numbers of Shot spotter alerts that don't have a corresponding 911 call is somewhere between 80 and 90%. And we fall right in that. So because we won't have the volume of calls because of shot spotter alerts, we can now increase the priority and assure the response of an officer to those shots fired calls. And I think maybe this is an opportunity for us to do some public education on making sure that when people do hear what they believe or they perceive to be gunshots, to make that call and not rely on their neighbor or someone else to make that call.

But eight to nine out of every 10 cases, no one's going to call, so there won't be a police response at all. So I'm very concerned about that. I guess maybe we're using the wrong metric also, because I don't believe the number of arrests has any point here. Because when ShotSpotter hears what it registers as gunfire and reports it to us, by the time we get there, whoever fired the gun is long gone. So of course we're not going to make arrests. That's not the metric to use. That's like saying, I don't like the new car I bought because I don't like the vacation that I went on that I drove to with it. That's not the point of ShotSpotter is to make that arrest. It's to find evidence that might lead to an arrest. And so I don't know that the number of arrests is the best hallmark. I think that the data point should be how often do we go out on an alert and we actually find evidence that a gun was fired, if it was a semi-auto at least.

And I think that that is actually fairly frequent. But I do think that as we do a cost benefit analysis, I do think that it is reasonable to better use data to be much more precise about the locations. of where this technology is deployed rather than just have it blanketly deployed across the city. For the potential that gunfire may occur in a certain area, I think that it would just be much more prudent for us to be more precise and mobile with our deployment.

I know we've been very intentional about placing this technology in those areas where we have the highest reports of gunfire in the first place. I mean, that's, we don't put it everywhere. We put it where the most gunfire occurs. So that's, last question then is, I know you're not talking about what vendors, you're not identifying any vendors, but can you tell us what technology we're looking at? Are we looking at a new gunfire alert technology or are we looking at a technology solution that has nothing to do with that but is completely different in nature?

Well, not being the tech guy, I don't know that I can really get deep into the technology that I... I see a tech guy over there. Well, and I don't even know that he can accurately answer the question. I think that there are, I mean, sound thinking and ShotSpot has been around for a long time. the deployments were based on five to 10 years worth of previous data. And so I do think that there has been some enhancements in the capabilities of this technology. I do think that there is an opportunity for it to be much more mobile. So you're not putting it on a light pole and it stays there for 10 years. Instead, there is a way to move it where you know that you're having a problem. And then once you've address that problem, move it somewhere else where you're having a problem.

All right. So then, with regard also, so the intent here is to look for a new technology that will assist with gunfire.

Correct, and to Chief's point for us, for PD to be more dynamic with response, but I think also there's an important factor in here as we look at ShotSpotter in its current and past forms, which is an identifier. This happened at this point in time, right? It's a notifier, but as technology is becoming smarter, whether through machine learning or AI or however you look at those informed forms of information that are now coming from these same types of solutions, I think We start now to look at it more as a force multiplier, whatever that we're moving in for manpower, right? In response to that. So we can't put people everywhere all around the city. Now we want to make technology that force multiplier to be able to inform us in a number of different ways. So I think there's a lot of tech left on the table in its current formation. And so part of the discussion has been around if it means taking a step back to take a couple of steps forward and be able to actually inform, to Chief's point, if we're working off of five to 10 year old data. So it's telling us as much as we can potentially know at this point, we've kind of reached the top of what we can do. And the only other thing we could do is respond to every shot spotter and say we need to send more people. And we don't have the people power. and we don't have the cars or the money or anything else to continually do that. So I think the biggest thing that I'm looking to gain out of this, and I know PD is looking to gain out of this, is when we do go back down this path, if we do indeed go down this path, how do we make sure that the purchase is able to not be a one solution thing, but actually able to inform us on many other different levels. And I don't have all those levels right now. I couldn't tell you all of what's out there, what it may yield for us, but I think that's the perspective that we started looking to. Because I agree with you, and I've heard from citizens too, that would be concerned that it's going away. And to those folks, I would say that Us taking a step back is actually a benefit for the city and for those citizens as concerned.

Thank you. I understand the lack of manpower and the lack of ability to respond to all of the reports of gunfire. But then that leads me to have to tell constituents that I'm sorry, but there's so much gunfire in the city that we're responding to that we're going to stop even responding to all of them. We're only going to respond to the ones that you call us on. And as we know, that's only about 13%. And that's not acceptable for most people living in Denver. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Torres.

Thank you so much, Councilman Watson. I do have a few questions about the data piece that you all mentioned. And you said that the data is between five to ten years old. And I'm just curious as to if we've had the contract in place for five years, what data have we been collecting and why is the data so old?

I'll speak to that. I think that maybe the misunderstanding, we continue to collect data. So we have accurate data on where gunshots are occurring across the city. But where those particular arrays are now set was based on data from ten to five years ago. So those locations. And so we're continuing to collect data and certainly any decision that we make going forward relative to mobile placements or other technologies will be based upon current data that we constantly collect.

So you all are hoping to be able to use the next year or so to be able to collect data in order to find different locations that you all might be able to put these in in the future?

Well, I think that the decisions that we will make will be very timely and contemporary relative to what is happening now, not what has been happening over the last year. I think that we want to be very precise in what are we experiencing right now and deploy that technology in that location, address that issue, and then see if there's another emerging problem that we can solve with that kind of technology.

Okay, thank you. Yes. So, Director Gardner, you spoke about the low yield. And so given the low yield and the comfortability with letting this tech lapse, I'm curious, did the department consider ending the contract early altogether to save resources? Because the contract allows for a 20-day notice to end the contract without cost.

I don't know that we necessarily chose it for that reason.

No, we didn't choose it for that reason. And as Councilmember Flynn had pointed out, there is this balance between just the community and also the districts of there is, you know, some constituents who continue to want this technology while others are feeling that, yes, we can end this technology right away. And so this was just that balance of that information as Chief Thomas also pointed out. pointed out to the data in making that decision point. Also understanding that we were at the end of the five year term. We had to make a decision whether to move forward with our RFP and that would have needed to happen back in January or February of this year, understanding how long that RFP process worked and where we were at in our thought process of that.

And RFP for a new contract in the future? Yes.

Yeah.

because we are at the end of our five year term. So Councilwoman Gonzales Gutierrez asked earlier, if you will, we're looking to have another contract in the future. to which you all said that you had not heard from any vendors, but it sounds like your process is to actually have a vendor in the future. It's just a matter of identifying who that vendor is going to be.

Correct. And that's what I was mentioning earlier, is that the notion or the prospect that we may never have a ShotSpotter again, that I'm not saying. What I am saying, though, is we won't enter anything in 27, but we will take that time to take a look at data, community, and these sorts of things. I'm not saying that the technology will never be used as much as it is how should it be used, what vendor we should use. So my answer is more of, We don't, we have not chosen anyone yet. We haven't engaged in a full proof of concept yet, those sorts of things. So the technology itself is not off the table as much as it is, if we do go back down this road, how will that look and how will that inform the RFP process?

I don't know, it feels familiar to the lock axon conversation where we were getting rid of lock and we replaced it with axon. And so it sounds like in the future, we're probably going to get rid of this technology and replace it with something else that's going to be similar to the surveillance that you all need or that you all are using. And so it's a little confusing. But I want to better understand that if the department had made the decision in June to end the contract as opposed to amend it, it seems the city would have saved close to $400,000. And so what's the reason not to save $400,000 versus what the number you all have on your PowerPoint?

So at this point in time, I mean, with this being September, I can only speak to the right now. When that decision was being contemplated at that time, that was the decision that was made by the department. But as of right now, even if we decided to cancel that technology in the next 20 days, we would not see that same yield because it's not a prorated basis of the number of months that we would have on the contract it was the square mileage and some of the other factors that were in that when those decisions which sound thinking that reduction amount can you give me the other factors so it's the skirt square mileage in addition and in addition to that is what So that piece and Commander Barnes is not here. He was one of the negotiating partners. I would have to get back with you with that information.

Can you follow that up? I imagine the entire community is rather interested. So if you all would like that. I'd love to talk about the precision of the software, and I'm going to put this in the context of Montbello because it is in my districts, but advocates have raised concerns about the technology for ShotSpotter contributing to the over-policing of black and brown communities. Something we have seen recently was in Montbello, where there was a woman's 70th birthday party that DPD allegedly swarmed based on a false alert. And so can you all elaborate on what percentage of alerts are false positives?

Ask Chief Thomas if he would like.

Sure. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

We have an annual meeting with Sound Thinking where they review their performance, especially their performance meeting. They review their performance over the past year. And they consistently come in well over 90% success rate where there are positive hits. And that is within that contractual amount. And so while there are instances where either they misidentified the sound or where they misplaced where that sound came from, because it's supposed to be within, I think, a 25-yard radius. And so only 4% or 5% of the time is it either a false report or is it outside of that radius.

Okay, and I have one follow-up for you.

Yes.

How often is the technology capturing actual gunshots and associating it to folks who are in the area who are not actually associated with the gunshots? Do you all collect that data in terms of like when the shot spotter happens, they hear the sound and then there's someone in the area and your officers pull someone over based on what they have heard from the shot spotter and that person is actually not associated with it?

So I could probably obtain that data, but as Councilman Flynn pointed out, more often than not, the person who fired the gunshot is not present anymore. In fact, I would say the majority of the time, there's nobody present. And so we are just collecting shell casings. There are occasions where there are other people, they tend to be witnesses that will point to the direction that the person who fired the gun went. And so I would say that it's actually rare that we make a forceful contact with an individual in response to a shot spotter call.

Do you have that data?

I could probably work with.

Can you? I would be very interested in it, particularly as we're hearing from communities of color that they feel over-policed by this technology, that officers are then responding from the technology and then pulling over folks in the area.

Yeah.

And so I'd be very curious as to how often that is happening with your officers.

Sure. I mean, I guess the narrative that I would present in opposition to the over-policing is that this is actually more precise policing, because rather than just infiltrating a neighborhood or a community with officers, because we believe this to be a neighborhood where gun violence is frequent, we use... technology to tell us when and where to be.

Thank you. I just have a few more questions, Mr. Chair. Two more. One is my understanding from the conversation that we've had this afternoon, or this morning, excuse me, that the shot spotter isn't actually in every single district. And so can you talk to me about if that is the case and why that may be the case?

Council districts, not the district. Okay, thank you. Probably more of a historical question. Thank you.

So it actually, the shot spotter array actually does touch every district. Probably the district that touches least is District 3, which is I would have to look at a map to understand the council districts and so certainly there's far fewer council districts that are far more council districts that are not covered by Shots Fired than police districts.

Can you provide us with... Oh, sure. Certainly. I love that you knew that was coming. Okay, Chief Thomas, I have just one more. Can you elaborate on what the impact of ShotSpotter has been on DPD's response times? Was the prioritization changed because we were sending officers to alerts that were low-yield and this delayed response times?

So I think it was really just a data-informed, smart decision. I think that as we continue to have Longer calls, much more difficult to process calls. Other priority needs and workload needs, I think that those all had impacts on our patrol capacity. And so trying to find smart ways to increase patrol capacity, one of those ways to increase patrol capacity was the reduction in low-level stops. And so I think that every day I think about How can we maintain more of our patrol capacity? So the decision to change the priority and then choose not to even respond to certain shot spotters was certainly a way that I sought to increase our patrol capacity.

Thank you. And then this may be for you, Director Gardner, but maybe stay because it may be for you. Regarding the P&I sites, and I want to know specifically for the reduction in the geographical coverage in District 8, and I'm sure Councilwoman Torres might have the same question because it's her district too, that you all made a decision to remove the shot spotter from those two council districts. And I want to understand, like, What was at play for that decision and does the P&I sites have any, like how does the P&I sites interface with that decision?

I'll see who wants to go first.

I'll just tell you that those reductions did not impact our P&I sites.

Yeah, so it definitely wasn't a driver to, I think what I hear you saying is. What was the driver? What was the driver, all right? And the driver was more or less simply, we're trying to figure out with PD, what is the best way to draw this down and really wherever we started, there was no like ideal point or place to start. And I don't know that there was a lot of criteria to say, we'll start in neighborhoods that have fewer shot spotters alerts, which if we look at on surface, which would have made more sense, right? These are hardly ever used, let's draw down on those first. as much as it is potentially starting from more of a geographic perspective where we start in and potentially move out and identifying those antennas and those microphones. When I had Esther and other staff looking into it, it just made sense to start drawing down on those geographical locations more so than it being alert driven, I will say that.

It feels contrary to how you all started the presentation with the importance of pointing out the importance of the data being the driver of the decision and that decision not being driven by data. And so it would make more sense to say, well, in Council District 8, we saw a reduction in the number of alerts, or in Council District 3, we saw a reduction in the number of alerts. And that's how we arrived at wanting to pull down the shot spotters here versus

I can add to that as well. A couple of the areas that were drawn down over the last 12 months, that was the areas with some of the lowest alerts for ShotSpotter. So that's one of the criteria that was used as well for choosing these areas. And I can send you the maps again as well. You just said it wasn't. Yes, correct. No, I was just adding to it, yes.

I mean, you both said different things.

You're in contradiction with yourself. I'm in the weeds, that's why.

Okay, so he's wrong and you're right, or you're right and he's wrong. I don't know.

No, I'm on the weeds with that, and that was one of the criteria that was used to choose the areas for the reductions. Was the alert? Was the least amount of alerts in the last 12 months. Okay. And I can send you all that data as well.

All right. I feel confident in this conversation in this moment, but I'm going to let y'all live. Council Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Councilmember Torres.

Thank you so much. Shanee, I missed the amount that you said was covered by grant funds versus general fund.

So the amount covered by grant funds and I did follow up JAG stands for Justice Assistance Grant. It is approximately $325,000. And so our prorated portion then of that general fund that we would be paying this year is $380,000. Okay.

So it's about 60-40 or something like that. Okay. That's super helpful. Thank you for that. So I'll just start off by saying I support this move to reduce and reassess and honestly would prefer to see funding go into officers responding to actual 911 calls and the assessment of how do we actually promote safety. Um, and it isn't just in response, right? It is in, um, kind of proactive, uh, work and, um, I know you believe that as well. And I just want to say, like, it is all of that is bookends of this. Um, and Councilman Flynn, um. Your comment, I think I just have to contradict. If you ask people around Denver if they like this, not in my district. And without divulging too much of what area is covered, I want to just double down on what the chief said. It is police districts that are largely covered by these arrays, not council districts. So when you talk to your residents in District 2 and they say, we don't want this to go away, they don't have it now. They don't have it now. District one, they don't have it now. And it was based on data that is five to 10 years old. And so it covers most of my district west of the highway. And you can't convince me that these neighborhoods are the only places west of the highway where we have gunshots, where we have issues that we need to resolve. So, but it feeds a perception and a narrative that it does and it's a huge disservice to all residents west of the highway. So, we need to be doing things that overall improve the confidence in calling 911. I had a friend's mom reach out to me whose daughter lives downtown who waited two hours for police response and they never came. Like our residents need that confidence that they call and somebody is going to show up and we need to be able to pivot to other community solutions. So I encourage this. It's time to be more critical of this technology and I really do look forward to us investing other solutions and hopefully you use us as kind of feedback loops for that because it's definitely a topic of conversation in my district. So, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Sandoval.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chief, for being here. And thank you, Director Gardner and Sinead, for looking into this. The area of northwest Denver that has the ShotSpotter is the area, if you look at the 2015 gentrification map, they match up. It's the area, the only area in Northwest Denver that has Denver Housing Authority, literally. It's the only area that if you look at the 2015 gentrification map, that hasn't gentrified. It's in the northern part of Sunnyside. It's like the eastern part of Sunnyside. east of Pecos where I have Denver Housing Authority. But it's fascinating because I also have a police district there, literally right there. That is literally where Police District 1 is. And so there has been this perception in northwest Denver that that part of District 1 is scary, that that part of District 1 has more violence, that that part of District 1 has things that we need to deal with, and that's not accurate. You know that, Chief. You've been down to Police District 1. You were in my, I met you when you worked in Police District 1 and Council District 1, and that's not a fair narrative to have because normally, Unfortunately, in Denver Housing Authority, you have more people of color in those communities. And so it does create this perception that Aslan Rec Center isn't safe. That Aslan Rec Center, you should send your kids to Scheitler West Rec Center that's on 46th and Sheridan, right at the very edge of Denver and not down into Sunnyside, where we're about to put a $15 million pool in. So I've had this lived reality that my one neighborhood of mine is Half of it is safe, and then half of it isn't. And so I would just say that I agree with all my colleagues that responding to 911 calls are really important. It's gotten better. I've heard improvement on responding to 911 calls, and I've heard improvement through the 911 center. So I know it's not just all of you. I know it's a trickle-down effect. I do know that when I first started working at the city, when you called the non-emergency number, it wasn't a phone tree. You actually had someone who could pick up the phone and they'd be able to triage that. That went away under Chief Pazin and it turned into a phone tree. which basically feels like a 311 automated system so you still you can't get a hold of someone and then when you go into a phone tree and it's a non-emergency number people don't oftentimes say that they want to be contacted. So there's this disconnect where we actually have to teach residents that if you need follow-up please say you need contact. But if you actually go on that non-emergency number and you go down the whole entire phone tree, it's really hard to get to the point to say follow up with Amanda Sandoval at my home address and have someone come out. And then because we're so, our resources are so tied up right now because of our economic factors that are going in, by the time somebody comes, a police officer comes, You're probably not home. Or it might be two days later, and you're like me, older in my 40s. And I'm like, what? What happened? I don't think I remember what I was talking about. So there is this disconnect of perceived crime because of this shot spotter. And I'll just say I remember when we talked about this technology, Chief, 10 years ago, I do remember when we talked about it in Police District 1 in Northwest Denver and what we were going to do with that technology and how it was going to perform and how it was going to work. And I will say some of it did help some crimes. It did. We've had some serious crimes in Northwest Denver that it did actually help solve. And also, at the same time, it has done this perception of inequity in Northwest Denver. And so I would rather have us not spending money on technology that was dated when I was a council aide, not a sitting council person. So this technology came in when I was a council aide, and I remember talking about it. I would rather have it not be put money towards that and have the money being put towards More proactive solutions and having our police officers out there. Like, I just had a movie in the park and we had the police. We had the whole entire time. They were serving popcorn the entire time during my event and all the kids. It was the longest line that we had for all the resources. And they all got to meet the officers who are patrolling their streets. That's where community happens. That's where you can put a name to a face. That's where someone can say, hey, I have this issue. I've been calling the police department. Oh, what issue? Let me get more information from you. How can I help you? And you actually put a name to a face instead of calling a non-emergency number. And then I'll just end that I think that this is a really important conversation, going back to what Councilmember Lewis mentioned, is the surveillance. I know we haven't talked about the Axon contract in a while, but when we did talk about that, we all talked about the need for a surveillance ordinance. So I think this falls under the need that we at Denver City Council need to have a surveillance ordinance to help guide these so when we have an RFP, we have language here. I was just listening to national public rates and the Attorney General in Arizona, they're probably going to do a surveillance ordinance at the state level because of Flock, because of the egregious actor that Flock has become. Flock is all over the news right now into how it's just an egregious actor. And so as I've been looking into more research on that, I've just found more states and municipalities having the need to have a framework for what does surveillance mean in their city, what do we want to see from surveillance, how is it protecting us, and how is it harming us, to be 100% honest with us. with everyone and that all circles back to that need that this council this body needs to work on a surveillance ordinance because that's what we said when we voted on that axon contract that we would help lead that charge so i'm just putting that homework back on us that we actually need to come to you all, the Department of Safety, with a surveillance ordinance that can help guide this in the future as we pull down these contracts and reduce them before we go back out. So I think it's all mixed together, but it really does come, we need that ordinance to be worked on and that's, that Exxon, I think it's March, And me, time frame lady, I'm like, time is of the essence, because now we're going into budget season. And it's going to be the holidays. And it's never convenient to work on really big pieces of ordinances. But the time is now. We have to use this opportunity now. So thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you so much, Councilmember Sandoval. I agree. Not pertaining to this contract, but the surveillance ordinance was something that was paramount. And so as the chair of this committee, I'm going to remind the executive director, Department of Safety, as well as the surveillance task force, there is an expectation for an outcome. And so I look forward to us working in some expedited fashion to make sure that whatever that resolution process looks like, no need to respond on that, but definitely want to have that for a different talk if we have a contract before us. My comment, I don't have any questions. I appreciate the team providing me briefings. In District 9, we have Police District 1, 2, and 6. And so we have three police districts that have different ways of responding to these calls. It's important prior to this, if it comes to the floor, that we have clarity on the criteria for the drawdown. We actually have that in writing to all council members, not just this committee, but all council members. I think that is essential. I agree with Councilmember Torres. I think it's smart, the idea of ending this contract and actually having reflection. There are times, I mean 10 years data for identifying locations for technology and technology changes on a daily basis and even faster now. I think really looking and spending time within that 12-month process to identify what we do next and then leveraging the Surveillance Task Force work as well as an ordinance that I expect, we expect, will have something that will be integrated within that contract. And so I support the action, the idea of this. For my council members online here, these discussions on committee is simply is this contract available for the floor, whether you support this action or not. And so with that, if there are no other comments, I believe council president was online. I just wanted to make sure I was trying to be reticent not to speed through with folks who are online who have not raised a hand. So I'll give a half second. Seeing no hands up, do I have a comment or a motion?

I'll do one more comment and I'll make a motion to move it. I just wondered if the Chief or the Director have any advice for residents when they, how can we promote people to more frequently call 911 when they believe they hear gunfire because a 13% report rate is horrible. So is there any sort of education campaign or is there any sort of work we can do in the community to tell people, here's what you should do, because I've been doing it for 11 years and people still don't call.

Are there two things? There are two things. Both of those pieces, right? So we've been going out to the community about, I don't know, seven times now, Nicole? 7, maybe 8 times to try to talk about this, this particular technology and how that looks will continue to do that. We are hitting every area of the city. So that's 1 piece. And the other piece of probably chief is going to hit on is in terms of what that overall strategy is to educate. But there is also a very real piece of that, and that's 911 call volume based on how many call takers we have, right? And this is another aspect as to why, if we need to talk about drawing down shot spotters, probably a good idea right now in terms of being able to hire to keep up with the volume. With that drop in volume, then we gained also some of that time back. It may be a small time, but we gained that time back. And how do we route calls? Also, 911, as you know, maybe is going through a CAD upgrade and some other technological upgrades that will help in response to what Councilman Sandoval mentioned in terms of call routing and things of that nature. That system is also 10-plus years old. So we're dealing with... multi layers of technology that also they're impacting this. So those are two things that I would add. Yes, there is a campaign to go out there. We've been doing it and kind of continue to doing it, adding that information to all corners of the city as well as other programs that PD has on their shelf.

First, I would say that, you know, calling the police and the value of that and the necessity of that is a discussion that occurs at every district cap meeting. And certainly something that we can continue to do. And I'd be happy to partner with you to make sure that we get that message out to all communities. I think the important thing to understand is that that 911 call, that is the key to initiating that safety response. And it's also a data point. Helping us know where things are happening when they're happening is very important to us Also being able to initiate that safety response so that we can so that we can get there and do whatever is necessary to do and I think that What we have to get people out of the habit of thinking is that someone else is going to do it or that Or that maybe that's not what I heard. Well, maybe it's not, but maybe it was. And I would rather err on the side of, I called the police and told them about a gunshot when actually it was a backfire. Let us determine that. And please don't think that your neighbor or the person across the street is going to call because they probably didn't.

Thank you. I'll make a motion. Move this to the floor.

Thank you. I know Council President said her phone dropped. Were you wanting to make a comment, Council President? Let's give a last call. Hearing none, I have an extremely ready motion by Councilmember Flynn and seconded by Councilmember Torres. Is there a need for a vote? Seeing none, there are no items on consent. With that, thank you so much. We'll see you all on the floor. Thank you. Thank you.