Denver council approves $45,000 in liability settlements, debates oversight
Two settlements involving the transportation department prompted discussion of citywide liability exposure; a proposed transfer to the liability fund remains unresolved in public records.
The Denver City Council approved two liability settlements totaling $45,000 Monday, while members debated whether agency training, discipline and policy oversight contribute to the city’s broader settlement exposure.
The settlements involve Resolution 26-1140, which authorizes $30,000 for Zsanae Martinez and her attorneys, AJP Law, and Resolution 26-1141, which authorizes $15,000 for Larissa Pacheco and AJP Law. Both payments come from the city’s liability-claims appropriation and resolve Martinez and Pacheco v. Jose Duran and City & County of Denver, Denver District Court case 2025CV33437.
The resolutions identify the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure as the department involved but do not describe the allegations, incident dates or locations, or the specific conduct at issue. They call the payments full satisfaction of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Councilmember Shontel Lewis said 2026 city settlement spending had reached $3.992 million and that the council had approved more than $34.95 million in settlement-related measures since 2023. She said settlements are paid from the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund rather than individual agency budgets and called for structural changes across city agencies, including DOTI and the Denver Police Department.
Councilmember Parry tied public-safety liability exposure to training, internal policy and discipline in the Police and Sheriff’s departments. Parry said the Office of the Independent Monitor and Citizen Oversight Board should be involved when internal policies change, citing recent disciplinary-policy changes and a new Denver Police Department Taser policy.
That proposal was discussed but not adopted as a new curriculum, disciplinary rule, reporting mandate or oversight procedure. The council approved no specific liability-reduction plan during the settlement discussion.
The council also considered Council Bill 26-1107, which the official agenda describes as an $18.8 million rescission from General Fund contingency for transfer to the liability-claims fund. The accessible bill record lists the measure as pending and has no final-action field, so the transfer cannot be reported as enacted.
The amount also conflicts with Lewis’ statement during the meeting that the city made a $3 million contingency rescission. The available records do not show whether that figure referred to a separate or earlier transfer or was a misstatement. Approved minutes, final action records or an enrolled ordinance would be needed to resolve the discrepancy.