HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-2025 - Study Session Agenda PacketSTUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
Monday, November 17, 2025
6:30 p.m.
This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting, and in person, at: 7500 West 29th
Avenue, Municipal Building, Council Chambers.
City Council members and City staff members will be physically present at the
Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways:
1. Attend the meeting in person at City Hall. Use the appropriate roster to sign
up to speak upon arrival.
2. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by
noon on November 17, 2025)
3. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone:
Click here to pre-register and provide public comment by Zoom (You must
preregister before 6:00 p.m. on November 17, 2025)
4. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or
YouTube Live at https://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/view
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings
sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. The City will upon request, provide auxiliary
aids and services leading to effective communication for people with disabilities,
including qualified sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, documents
in Braille, and other ways of making communications accessible to people who have
speech, hearing, or vision impairments. To request auxiliary aid, service for effective
communication, or document in a different format, please use this form or contact
ADA Coordinator, (Kelly McLaughlin at ada@ci.wheatridge.co.us or 303-235-2885) as
soon as possible, preferably 7 days before the activity or event.
Public Comment on Agenda Items
1. Municipal Court Updates
2. Options for City Regulation of Drones
3. Staff Report(s)
4. Elected Officials’ Report(s)
ITEM NO. 1
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager
Marianne Schilling, Interim Deputy City Manager
FROM: Jonathan Lucero, Presiding Municipal Judge
Roxanna Caldwell-Tillery, Court Administrator
DATE: November 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Municipal Court Update
ISSUE:
This informational update reflects progress during the first full year under Presiding
Judge Jonathan Lucero, including organizational changes within the Court and ongoing
modernization efforts to enhance efficiency, compliance, and community engagement.
PRIOR ACTION:
In November 2023, City Council directed that Municipal Court operations transition to an
Administrative Management Model, assigning administrative and personnel oversight to
the Court Administrator while maintaining judicial supervision by the Presiding Judge.
In May 2024, City Council appointed Jonathan Lucero as Presiding Municipal Judge.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
Over the past 18 months, the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court has transitioned successfully into the Administrative Management Model endorsed by Council in 2023.
The new leadership structure has strengthened communication, accountability, and
strategic alignment with City goals.
Key achievements include implementation of a collections program, preparation for the
Tyler Technologies CMS, and measurable improvement in operational efficiency and
interdepartmental collaboration. The Court’s modernization aligns with the City’s
ACTION values (Accountability, Change, Teamwork, Integrity, Opportunity, Now),
fostering a culture of service, innovation, and professionalism.
Study Session Memo – Municipal Court Update November 17, 2025
Page 2
The Court’s modernization efforts are laying the foundation for long‑term sustainability,
data transparency, and improved customer service. Future updates will continue to
provide Council with performance metrics, implementation progress, and
recommendations for further operational improvements.
DISCUSSION:
The information below provides a detailed update on progress that has been made in
the Court over the last 18 months, including the first full year under Presiding Judge
Jonathan Lucero. There have been several key updates within the realms of Leadership
and Staffing and Technology and Process Modernization. Additionally, there are both
challenges to be addressed and opportunities for continued progress into 2026 and
beyond.
Leadership and Staffing
• Presiding Judge: Judge Lucero celebrated his first year as Presiding Judge in
July 2025. His leadership has emphasized consistency, professionalism, and
accessibility in courtroom operations.
• Administration: A new Court Administrator was hired to lead modernization
initiatives, enhance process efficiency, and strengthen interdepartmental
coordination.
• Probation: The Court welcomed Probation Officer Brenda Valdez, who brings over
30 years of experience in the court system and is integrating new approaches to
municipal probation management.
Technology and Process Modernization
• Court Management System (CMS) Transition: The City is preparing to transition
to Tyler Technologies for the new CMS. While awaiting the State Internet Portal
Authority (SIPA)’s final approval, staff have begun process mapping, workflow
analysis, and document standardization to ensure a smooth transition.
• Operational Readiness: Staff are reviewing procedures, forms, and calendar
practices to align with the new system. This includes digital scanning, electronic
forms, e‑ticketing coordination with WRPD, and updated record retention
protocols.
• Paper‑on‑Demand Initiative: Templates for electronic filing, payment processing,
and digital signatures are being established to reduce paper reliance and improve
efficiency.
Study Session Memo – Municipal Court Update November 17, 2025
Page 3
• Collections Program: The Court implemented a third‑party collections agency to
address delinquent accounts. Over 500 cases have been submitted, with the first
successful remittance received. Policies and tracking tools have been
established to monitor placements, payments, and outcomes.
• Photo‑Radar Appeals: Dedicated photo‑radar appeal hearings are scheduled to
begin in November 2025. Procedures, forms, and public notices have been
finalized to ensure clear communication with defendants and smooth docket
flow.
• Community Collaboration: The Court continues to partner with the Homeless
Navigation Program, expanding outreach into the Jefferson County Jail to
connect defendants with resources at earlier stages. Coordination with WRPD
and the City Attorney’s Office continues to refine citation handling, docket
scheduling, and case management practices.
Other Actions Implemented
Over the past year and a half, the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court has continued to
evaluate and refine its internal processes to improve efficiency, fairness, and
collaboration across departments. Notable actions include:
• Warrant Review Initiative: Conducted an extensive review and elimination of
extremely old or unenforceable warrants, including those affected by recent
statutory changes.
• Status Conferences Prior to Trial: Implemented pre-trial status conferences
designed to resolve more cases before they proceed to trial, resulting in greater
efficiency and reduced docket congestion.
• Enhanced Probation Oversight: Increased the use of supervised probation in lieu
of court-supervised probation, ensuring greater accountability and support for
defendants.
• Juvenile Sentencing Improvements: Began utilizing Pre-Sentence Investigations
(PSIs) to identify appropriate resources and interventions for juvenile defendants.
• Expanded Collaboration with Wheat Ridge Police Department (WRPD):
Strengthened coordination regarding fingerprinting, probable cause warrants,
photo radar processes, and the expansion of municipal-level filings.
Challenges
One of the ongoing challenges for the Court continues to be the Community Court
initiative. While the program is designed to meet defendants where they are—offering an
alternate court environment as well as alternate sentencing options through
Study Session Memo – Municipal Court Update November 17, 2025
Page 4
community-based sessions at a local church—participation remains low. Many
defendants do not appear for scheduled court sessions, resulting in the issuance of
warrants and, ultimately, arrests rather than voluntary engagement with the program.
In response, the Court recently implemented a process allowing the Homeless and
Housing Navigators to meet directly with defendants while they are in custody at the
Jefferson County Jail. This approach helps ensure that defendants are connected to
essential services prior to release and encourages re-engagement with the court
process. Despite these efforts, the overall success rate for the Community Court
program remains approximately 6%, based on the most recent data reviewed earlier this
year.
CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS:
• Execute Tyler Technologies Contract following SIPA’s signature and initiate
implementation planning.
• Finalize Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and process redesign in
preparation for system migration.
• Monitor and Optimize Collections Program with quarterly reporting to Finance
and Administration.
• Conduct Photo‑Radar Hearings and gather data on appearance rates and
outcomes for future reporting.
• Continue Staff Development and probation onboarding, with cross‑training and
customer service initiatives supporting the City’s ACTION values.
• Enhance Public Transparency through updated website content, online forms,
and public information materials.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This memorandum is provided for information only. Council feedback is invited
regarding ongoing priorities, performance metrics, and communication preferences for
future reports.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Court Statistics
2. Standing and Administrative Orders
% Change % Change
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 from 2024 YTD
January 324 150 64 128 210 179 -15%-15%
February 147 147 67 163 167 247 48%13%
March 104 139 87 80 149 153 3%10%
April 19 197 133 188 253 222 -12%3%
May 72 198 105 151 168 205 22%6%
June 146 190 126 151 179 293 64%15%
July 76 160 112 113 190 235 24%17%
August 86 126 81 70 131 138 5%16%
September 91 224 139 110 196 194 -1%14%
October 78 186 112 75 295 -100%-4%
November 72 167 194 56 134 -100%-10%
December 109 187 72 93 145 -100%-16%
TOTAL 1,324 2,071 1,292 1,378 2,217 1,866 -15.8%
% Change % Change
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 from 2024 YTD
January 34,047 14,813 12,060 11,930 13,123 25,373 93%93%
February 42,799 16,864 8,586 14,439 12,606 20,334 61%78%
March 18,725 25,202 11,526 13,954 12,850 15,815 23%59%
April 8,549 30,592 8,900 11,512 20,535 18,851 -8%36%
May 6,948 25,545 13,427 14,500 22,876 23,604 3%27%
June 17,773 23,072 10,911 14,629 21,592 23,252 8%23%
July 22,082 28,086 11,972 17,050 26,180 26,751 2%19%
August 10,688 18,526 9,511 7,709 22,900 30,898 35%21%
September 13,448 24,454 7,037 14,186 29,169 31,337 7%19%
October 14,362 20,830 12,410 9,295 31,087 0 -100%2%
November 10,567 17,189 15,750 9,008 20,000 0 -100%-7%
December 15,924 22,470 11,393 9,615 17,422 0 -100%-14%
TOTAL 215,912 267,643 133,483 147,827 250,340 216,215 -13.6%
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Municipal Court
Summary of Key Statistics
Total Traffic, Criminal, Animal & Zoning Tickets (aka Total Number of Cases)
Total MCT Revenue Collected (excluding surcharges with restricted uses)
ATTACHMENT 1
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
January 0 0 0 0 181 198
February 0 0 0 0 178 194
March 0 0 0 0 162 162
April 0 0 0 0 233 176
May 0 0 0 0 229 192
June 0 0 0 0 160 249
July 0 0 0 0 176 289
August 0 0 0 0 154 223
September 0 0 0 0 194 420
October 0 0 0 0 193
November 0 0 0 0 178
December 0 0 0 0 150
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 2,188 2,103
Cases Filed 1,324 2,071 1,292 1,378 2,217 1,866
Cases Closed 0 0 0 0 2,188 2,103
Closure Rate 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%98.7%112.7%
Total # of Traffic/Criminal Cases Closed (case closure rate goal =100%)
Collaboration with Wheat Ridge Police Department (WRPD)
Enhancing Case Flow and Expanding Municipal Court Jurisdiction
Over the six months, the Wheat Ridge Municipal Court (WRMC) has placed a focused effort
on strengthening collaboration with the Wheat Ridge Police Department to ensure that
eligible citations are appropriately written into Municipal Court rather than routed to
Jefferson County Court. This initiative supports the City’s goals of increasing local
accountability, improving efficiency, and ensuring that cases are managed within the
community where the violations occur.
Key Actions Implemented
•Outreach and Collaboration: Court leadership has engaged with WRPD command
staff and officers to strengthen understanding of court processes, improve citation
flow, and identify opportunities to simplify procedures that support more effective
case handling within the municipal system.
•Ticket Return Process Improvements: The Court modified its citation return times to
make the process easier and less confusing for officers in the field. This adjustment
has already led to improved citation routing and reduced delays in case initiation.
•Streamlined Communication: A direct liaison channel was created between the
Court and WRPD to quickly address citation issues, warrant questions, and
procedural clarifications, reducing the number of misrouted or rejected filings.
•Open House and Department Engagement: WRMC is hosting an Open House event
designed to strengthen relationships between Court and Police personnel, increase
familiarity with court operations, and bridge existing gaps in process understanding.
Future events are planned to continue building trust and shared accountability
between the departments.
•Photo Radar and Probable Cause Warrants: Collaboration continues on operational
areas such as photo radar enforcement, probable cause warrant procedures, and
fingerprinting, ensuring consistency and legal compliance across agencies.
Ongoing Goals
•Increase the number of eligible citations written into Wheat Ridge Municipal Court
rather than Jefferson County, keeping minor offenses within local jurisdiction.
•Continue offering educational sessions and feedback opportunities for WRPD
officers to enhance understanding of municipal procedures.
ATTACHMENT 2
• Establish periodic joint reviews of citation data to evaluate filing trends and identify
areas for additional outreach.
• Strengthen the feedback loop between WRMC, WRPD, and the City Attorney’s Office
to ensure consistent case handling and uniform application of municipal code.
Summary
The enhanced collaboration between WRMC and WRPD has already produced positive
early outcomes, with clearer communication, fewer citation errors, and improved officer
confidence in writing into municipal court. These efforts align directly with the City’s
ACTION values—particularly Accountability, Teamwork, and Opportunity—by creating a
more cohesive and responsive local justice system.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Main 303.493.6670 Fax 303.945.7960
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Through: Police Chief Murtha Patrick Goff, City Manager
From: Gerald Dahl
Date: November 12, 2025
Re: Options for City Regulation of Drones
______________________________________________________________________
Background:
This memo follows up on the Council’s study session decision in May at which DC Kellogg, Commander Hunt, and Sergeant Bowman presented an overview of federal regulation of drones in relation to local control. The Council directed staff to move
forward with case law research and possible options based on reasonableness and the degree to which any City regulations will be challenged.
Drone technology over the last 15 years for civilian use has exponentially increased the number of unmanned ariel systems (UAS) flying over our municipalities. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates annual drone sales at 7 million units in 2020.
This has created environmental, safety, and privacy concerns for citizens, some of whom will look to the City for a solution. Many cities and towns across the country have attempted to regulate drone activity, with varying success. This memo briefly outlines the strategies that have been tried and the risks associated with different approaches.
The overall guidance from Council at the May study session was to be conservative and
risk-adverse in identifying elements of a drone ordinance for the City. I have created an outline of elements at the end of this memo which follows that direction.
Existing regulations
Federal: The federal government, through the FAA, controls the use of aircraft in “navigable airspace” which covers “airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes
prescribed by . . . [FAA regulations], including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing.” Drones qualify as aircraft and thus their operation is largely controlled by existing federal legislation and FAA regulations.
The FAA distinguishes between drones being used purely for recreational purposes by hobbyists, and those used for business or commercial purposes, such as surveying.
Drones flown for recreation must be registered with the FAA if they weigh between 0.55
Options for drone regulations November 12, 2025 Page 2
pounds (approx. 9 oz) and 55 pounds1 and the registrant must be at least 13 years old.
Recreational “flyers” must comply with the FAA’s “Exception for Limited Recreational Operations or Unmanned Aircraft” issued May 17, 20192 which imposes eight operational guidelines, including a visual line-of-sight requirement on the operator or spotter. Commercial UAS users must apply for and receive a Remote Pilot Certificate
and comply with all regulations for pilots found in 14 CFR part 107.
Given Congress’ intent to give exclusive authority over aircraft flight and airspace safety to the FAA, any attempts at local regulation must be fairly limited to avoid being preempted by federal law. However, the FAA has recognized that local governments have valid concerns about the operation of this technology as it impacts citizens3 and
has acknowledged that “laws traditionally related to state and local police power,
including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations, generally are not subject to federal regulation.”
State: Colorado has not attempted comprehensive legislation on drones. Current law makes it unlawful to track or harass wildlife with a drone, and current regulations
prohibit the use of drone flight in Colorado state parks, unless specific permission is
obtained.
Municipal: Municipal regulation of drones would appear to be a matter of local concern, and many municipalities have enacted regulations to address local safety and privacy concerns. Also, as a constitutional home rule municipality, the City has broad discretion
in enacting nuisance, land use and zoning restrictions. As noted in the memo below
under “Current Regulations/Ordinances”, there are a great number of these ordinances. Notice, however, that they fall into categories similar to those listed below under ”Suggested Action,” and they have varying degrees of risk of preemption.
Suggested Action
Any local drone regulation by the City involves some risk of challenge from the FAA or
private drone operators. Ordinances that regulate commercial drone operation, as opposed to recreational operation, are more likely to be challenged given the existing federal requirements for commercial drones. The following elements of a drone ordinance are most likely to be upheld, and are recommended:
1 Drones weighing less than 0.55 lbs are generally indoor toys called nano-drones, having about a 100 ft range, a 10-minute flight time or less, and are unregulated by any governmental jurisdiction. 2 Codified at 49 USC 44809
3 FAA Press Release, July 20, 2018, “Federal vs. Local Drone Authority”
Options for drone regulations November 12, 2025 Page 3
• Nuisance and privacy: Amend the City’s existing code sections related to trespass, nuisance, disturbing the peace, voyeurism, harassment, or privacy violations, so as to include actions by drone operation. [low risk]
o Disorderly conduct: amend Code section 16-101
o Noise: amend Code section 16-103
o Event and crowd safety: (new Code section)
o Unlawful visual and electronic observation: amend Code sections 16-128 and 16-129 o Trespass: amend Code section 16-46
• Unsafe Operator: Prohibit operation of drones by persons under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or marijuana, or in a reckless or careless manner that would endanger or harass persons or animals. [low risk]
• Location: Restrict where the takeoff, landing, and operation of drones may occur.
This type of ordinance cannot result in the complete prohibition of drones anywhere in the City. But it may be useful if there are certain areas, e.g., public rights-of-way, City parks and property, and schools, where restrictions may be appropriate for safety reasons and to address personal expectations for privacy.
[low risk] Note: I am not at this time recommending that the City prohibit drone
operations in listed zoned districts, as I believe this risks invalidation. For the same reason I am not recommending the City enact a permit program for drone operations.
• Enforcement: via the existing municipal court and the administrative enforcement
procedures [low risk]
• Emergency authority: allow the Chief of Police to restrict drone use during emergencies [medium risk]
CURRENT REGULATIONS/ORDINANCES: Note: some cities have enacted
regulations on topics which I am not recommending, however I continue to believe the approach I suggest above is the most appropriate for the City at this time.
FAA:
• Register your drone if it weighs more than 0.55 lbs (250g)
• Fly below 400 feet in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace
• Always keep your drone within visual line of sight
• Never fly over groups of people
• Never fly near emergency response efforts (e.g., wildfires, accidents)
• Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol
Options for drone regulations November 12, 2025 Page 4
• Do not fly near airports unless you have FAA authorization
• Give way to manned aircraft
• Label your drone with your FAA registration number
LAKEWOOD:
• Permit Requirement: Launching, landing, or operating a drone on any city-owned facility, park, or open space requires a permit, except in designated "Unmanned Aircraft Flying Areas
• Designated Flying Areas: The following areas are designated for drone use:
o East Reservoir
o Hutchinson Park
o Wright Street Park
• Prohibited Areas: Drone use is prohibited at Bear Creek Lake Park and William
F. Hayden Park.
• Permit Process: Drone use is subject to the permitting process managed by the Director of the Community Resources Department.
• Compliance with Laws: All drone operations must comply with state and federal laws, including Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
DENVER:
• Prohibited Areas: Launching, landing, or operating drones is prohibited in all Denver Park facilities unless the area is designated by the DPR Executive Director for such activities.
• Designated Areas: Drones may be flown in park facility areas designated by the
DPR Executive Director, such as specific model airplane or helicopter flying areas, subject to posted rules and regulations.
• Special Events: Drone use at events requires a Film Permit issued by the Office
of Special Events. Applicants must provide:
o A completed film permit application detailing the dates and times of drone
flights.
o Proof of an Aviation Certificate of Insurance.
o FAA Pilot’s license.
o UAV Registration.
• Recreational Use: Event attendees are not allowed to fly drones recreationally at
Options for drone regulations November 12, 2025 Page 5
permitted events.
Enforcement and Penalties:
• Penalties: Violations of drone regulations can result in fines ranging from $100 to $500 for minor infractions, with more severe violations leading to fines upwards of $1,000.
• Enforcement: The Denver Police Department collaborates with federal agencies
to ensure compliance with both city ordinances and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
LITTLETON:
• Permit Requirement: A Film/Video/Drone Production Permit is required for any
student, nonprofit, or commercial video/photography production in the city,
including city parks and trails.
• Personal, Non-Commercial Use: A film permit is not needed for personal, non-commercial photo sessions in public areas in the City of Littleton.
CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE:
• Registration Requirement: All drones must be registered with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and with the City of Cherry Hills Village.
• Prohibited Areas:
o Drones may not be flown over any city property, including streets, parks, trails, or public buildings, without written authorization from the City Manager.
o Drones may not be flown over or on private property without the owner's consent.
• To operate a drone over city property, individuals must obtain written authorization from the City Manager.
• Operators must provide proof of FAA registration and may be required to submit
a flight plan detailing the purpose, location, and duration of the flight.
• Compliance with FAA Regulations: All drone operations must comply with FAA regulations, including those pertaining to airspace restrictions and operational guidelines.
Options for drone regulations November 12, 2025 Page 6
ARVADA:
• Film Permit Requirement: A Film/Video/Drone Production Permit is required for any student, nonprofit, or commercial video/photography production in the city, including city parks and trails.
• Personal, Non-Commercial Use: A film permit is not needed for personal, non-
commercial photo sessions in public areas in the City of Arvada.
LOUISVILLE:
• All FAA Regulations apply.
• General Prohibition: Launching, landing, or operating drones is prohibited in all
city parks and open space areas.
• Emergency Exceptions: Emergency landings are permitted only by city law
enforcement or code enforcement officers.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA:
• Prohibited Areas: Drones are not permitted within 500 feet of:
o Outdoor public assemblies or events with over 1,000 attendees
o City-owned parks, schools, or government buildings
o Enclosed venues such as the Amway Center, Camping World Stadium,
Dr. Phillips Center for the Performing Arts, Harry P. Leu Gardens, and the
Mennello Museum of American Art
o County or municipal detention facilities
o Any other locations designated by the Executive Director of Orlando Venues or the City Council
• Operational Restrictions:
o Flying under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited and may result in fines or imprisonment
o Use of drones for voyeurism or harassment is prohibited
o Operators must remain at the scene and render assistance in the event of
a crash or accident involving a drone
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA:
• Prohibited Flight Zones:
o Within one-quarter mile of:
Options for drone regulations November 12, 2025 Page 7
Schools while in session
Hospitals
Parks, recreation facilities, and playgrounds
Sporting events, road races, walks, outdoor festivals, fireworks
show, stadiums
Public gatherings of 50 or more people
Moving vehicles, highways, bridges, or busy streets
o Drones with cameras must maintain a minimum distance of 200 feet from people, vehicles, buildings, or structures.
o Owner Identification: Names and addresses of drone owners/operators must be affixed to the outside of their aircraft.
• General Restrictions:
o Drones must not operate in a manner that disrupts the quiet enjoyment of
property or imposes any risk to people or damage to property.
• Park Restrictions:
o The use of remote-controlled devices, including drones, is prohibited in city parks, park facilities, recreational facilities, and playgrounds.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK:
• Mandatory Permits: All drone take-offs and landings within New York City require a permit issued by the NYPD, in collaboration with the Department of Transportation (DOT).
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA:
• Model Aircraft (Hobby Use):
o Must obtain prior express authorization from the airport air traffic control tower if operating within 5 miles of an airport.
o Must not interfere with crewed aircraft; always yield the right of way.
o Must maintain visual line of sight without the use of vision-enhancing
devices.
o Must operate only during daylight hours.
o Must not exceed 400 feet above the earth’s surface.
o Must not operate closer than 25 feet to any individual, excluding the
operator or helper(s).
o Must comply with all federal regulations and temporary flight restrictions
(TFRs).
710 Kipling Street, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Main 303.493.6670 Fax 303.945.7960
o Must not operate in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
• Civil UAS (Commercial Use):
o Must comply with all federal regulations and TFRs.
o Must not operate in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
life or property of another.
o Must comply with any current and enforceable authorization granted by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
o Exempt from the provisions of this section if operated pursuant to, and in
compliance with, the terms and conditions of any current and enforceable
authorization granted by the FAA.