City Council - Regular Meeting

30. We are all here. I'm going to call the meeting to order. Thanks for being here. It is our regular business meeting for whatever today is February 24th, 2026. We'll start by standing for the pledge of allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next, we'll have the roll here. Evans here. Mayor Wber here.

Mayor here. here. Here, mayor.

Thank you. Um, having received no changes to the agenda, the agenda is approved as has been presented for the meeting. And we will move into our public comment period. It is the only public comment period we have for this evening. I'll acknowledge at the start that we did receive some public comment via email and those have been added to the public agenda so they can be viewed. And um I'll open it up for folks here in the audience. Um public comment, you're welcome to come to the podium, state your name, uh your neighborhood or address, and you have uh three minutes to address council. Come on up, Tom. My name is Tom Hoffman. I live in the Heritage Village neighborhood right off of Heritage Road and 4th Avenue. And I'm here today to speak in support of resolution number 3288, which provides financial assistance to people who are willing and able to uh do things like household batteries. guilty. Uh some other things also I would urge the the city to really work with or hold accountable ex the uh electric company on what they do, how they do it, and what improvements can be made. I yield my remaining two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Um, and thanks for the sign up. And thanks for signing up. Next up, we have Donna. Um, good evening, counselors. Um, my name is Donna Anderson. I live in the Stonebridge subdivision. My address is 841 Shelton Road. I'm here to strongly support the Golden Wildfire Resiliency Code as proposed in the code. as it stands right now. I further urge you to adopt map C, the enhanced structural protection wildfire map. I think it most accurately captures the already known wildfire risk and hazard for homes in Golden and it best represents the community wildfire protection plan that was rolled out in 20 2022 and formally adopted in 2023 by this city council. I attended the study session two weeks ago and I understand that council is concerned about insurance company push back potentially creating more uninsurable homes with a negative impact on affordability and this is what I want to speak toward but just as an aside for the last three plus years I've been in an active leadership role in our HOA on the fire mitigation committee um and um I admit I might be notorious with our fire department hopefully that's happy notorious not in a good way. Um, but I am aware of insurance non-renewals in our uh from our HOA and in surrounding neighborhoods in Golden. Uh, specifically the companies I'm aware of are Amity, Nationwide, All State, and Farmers. And that's my personal knowledge. I want to say that type of data to get it is is purely anecdotal because it is not public information and it totally relies on an individual telling you something and sharing it. And a lot of people don't want to share that. It's not

publicly available. So the stated reasons for non-re renewal which are required by law, one statement from the insurance company include these things. High you have high risk in Colorado. You have high risk in your zip code. You have high risk in your neighborhood. There are limited evacuation routes. There's vegetation in your zone next to the house or in your yard that's overhanging the roof. You have wooden home sighting. You have unscreened ground level decking and other types of reasons. You only have to list one and you have no supporting data to have to do that for the insurance company. But one thing we are really assured of is that insurance companies do not deny coverage because a city acknowledges wildfire risk or adopts a strong future-looking code. And I think that map C fills that strong future looking code requirement. So, I want to assure you four things. Insurance companies already know the wildfire risk for every home in Golden and around here. So, do federal, state, and local agencies. I've been involved in trying to get community grants. That's public information. It's out there. It's known. Um, I want to say if you're going to try to measure insurance non-renewals in this city, it's going to be really difficult. I do not know how you're going to do that. um because the data simply aren't public. Um and I want to say this too, in our homeowners association, it's been very hard to get homeowners on on board in working on their homes and yards. And I think that if you adopt a map that seems to lower the risk, which I think the first two maps do, I think that um demotivates homeowners to uh take on the responsibility to mitigate their own homes. and we need their help. We need their engagement. That is a demotivating factor to me.

Donna, your your time's up. If you could wrap it up. Okay. Thank you. Is that it? Yeah. If you have question, I have one more sentence. So, I just think acknowledging the real wildfire risk in Golden by adopting map C is really increasing the long-term credibility in the city. So, thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And next we have Whitney. And

good evening. Can you hear me? My name is Whitney Painter. This is my husband, Bart Sheldrake. We have lived in Golden for more than 20 years. We have run a business here in town for that entire duration as well, and we specialize in solar and battery installation. So, we are here to speak in favor of that resolution. Um, I do want to thank you all for your amazing service, not to mention all of you. Such a bonus to have you in the room to thank as well. It's um it's an amazing amount of time and it's not just the time you spend at these meetings to get ready for these meetings. And um it's humbling because uh it's a I look around and I know how busy all of you are in other parts of your life. So, it's not something that's easily made time for and we appreciate it. The resolution before you for these rebates is really powerful. Uh you will not be surprised to learn that we have a really special vantage point following the shutdowns in December because we are able to communicate with the people who are ready and able to put in a solar system, put in a battery. Maybe they already have a solar system. I mean, we've had a really remarkable sustainability initiative in this city for a long time. I served on that board for 10 years. And so we have a lot of solar in this town. And so it makes sense for a lot of those folks to put on batteries. But not all of them can. And there's a huge gap that's developed in that market because there was a federal tax credit that really helped middle inome folks, not the top of the top earners, the middle income earners who are working hard jobs and trying to control their utility costs. That tax credit went away last summer with a lot of other things and a very big piece of legislation that shall remain unnamed. And this is a powerful step of leadership where the sustainability board and the city of Golden are stepping forward to say we're going to be the first community in this state to try to fill that gap. I think it's something that others will take note of and we'll pay attention to in saying

it's a reasonable tangible way to keep moving along with some of these issues that are otherwise slipping from our grasp due to federal policy. And just one other really quick thing is sometimes we forget that uh shutdowns don't always occur when it's warm out like it did in December. We locked out there. So these battery systems can be really fundamental to to health and well-being especially for folks with medical equipment. So um it's not purely a luxury. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

And I strongly agree with Whitney on most things including this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? All right, I will close public comment period. Thank you all. Um, thank you all for being here. We are talking about those items further in our agenda. So, we will have uh lots of uh time for council um consideration and um I hope you can stay for that. We'll move on. Um council, was there Is there any specific response at the time or save it till we talk about the items?

No, but I have a um rules question uh for discussion of the consent items. Did you We'll we'll get to that. Okay. There's still time for that. I just want to make sure. Yep. Because we already approved the agenda. That's Yep. No, we'll get to that when we get to consent. Okay. Great. Yeah. Anything um before we move on to council comments, new business? All right. We'll move on to the next. Um, and I always start on this end, so anything for uh comments or new business?

Yeah. Um, so we have our planning meeting last night and going forward, we have a lot of really cool ideas that we want to bring to communicate with the public and have meetups and get to know each other. So stay tuned on what we're going to do there. And all three of us, district one, ward two, and ward one will be planning some things together. So stay tuned and find out. Jessica.

Yes. Um very quickly again a reminder around the Hunger-Free Golden Empty Bowl tomorrow, Wednesday the 25th starting at 5 and 6. If uh you haven't made your reservation yet, you can still go to the website, click the right button, and uh make the reservation. Um, also just uh Donna uh and John uh kindly sat with me for I think two three hours last yesterday morning and we we had a great conversation around wildfire management. So thank you for that.

Quick reminder, our next coffee with counselors is March 7th. That's Saturday 10:00 a.m. We'll be at the community center. Our topic is demystifying community engagement and our communications team will be there. Thank you. Um just a reminder for everybody um please if you're considering wanting to get involved in the city. Um the applications for boards and commissions are now open through March 16th I believe. Um we've got a lot of a lot of vacancies and a lot of great applicants so far. So looking forward to um more people getting involved and lending your expertise to the city. That's okay.

Yeah. Um, I'd like to honorable I'd like to thank the mayor for her very nice comments at the Colorado Environmental Film Festival. None of us know all the times the mayor's called upon to make introductory remarks and I know it takes time to pull them together. I really appreciate her try tying this to our new arts and cultural commission and including mention of our definition of culture to be at the intersection of art, science, and nature. At least that's what I remember of her remarks. Also, the mind's or profess uh the mind's professor or dean who was a sponsor of the film festival took the time to point out accurately that mining has not always been done in a way that respected the environment. And he made it clear that mines is putting stewardship, not just extraction at the forefront of their education. And finally, I was proud to watch the movie Women of Carbon, which was mostly about transitioning away from concrete and steel and large buildings and moving towards mass timber. Residents in Golden may or may not know that our new municipal building will be making extensive use of mass timber which sequesters carbon in the building structure and Golden should be proud of being at the leading edge of this technology innovation. U couple small updates for me. Um just couple of reminders similarly thank you for covering that. Um the docked bike share program survey is now available in guiding golden. So, if you have an interest in that, I would encourage folks to uh contribute their feedback there. Um, we I was also reminded last night during a DDA meeting that the Golden Comfort and Comedy Festival has started as of last night. So, if you're interested in participating in any of those fun events, um, I think there are still some tickets for shows available. And then I also had a note here about the upcoming state of the city because it appeared as a surprise on my calendar and March is closer than we all think. So, March 5th Yes. Um, yes. And I will echo that plug

for the Comfort and Comedy Festival as I ran into counselor Evans there last night on the opening night. It was a fantastic event and I smiled and laughed more um in that couple hours than I have in a long time. So, a lot of great uh acts coming in over the next two weeks here in Golden. and um yeah, I wish them a great uh success in this first year and know they really appreciate the support of DDA in making it happen. Um I also want to just plug the state of the city. Um it is the same format we've done the last few years. Free, open to everyone and encourage anyone from Golden, not just residents, but folks who um consider Golden their their home, um their place of work, uh the place where they own their business. It is a great opportunity once a year to find out uh what we've accomplished in the previous year and where we're focusing our intention for the current year and really get a a high level view of uh council's priorities and the city's work and um hope to see a lot of people there. It's always um great to see great opportunity to see community. It's at the Golden Community Center um next Thursday the 5th and it is uh starting at 5:00 pm. So that's what I've got. Anyone else? Any updates? No. No. No. Okay. We will keep moving on. Um next up we have consent matters. So, uh, we had two counselors reach out about, uh, removing item 7B off of our consent agenda. And so, uh, since that request has been received, I am going to remove item 7B. And we will discuss that after our proclamations, which is agenda item 8. So, between 8 and 9, we will

move item 7B, which is on first reading, uh, ordinance 22.88. So having said that, I would entertain a motion for the remaining consent items. I move adoption of the remaining consent items as modified. Second. Thank you. Any discussion on the these consent items? Is this a is this after seven or this is everything else other than 70? Okay, correct. Just just a question. Um,

I thought there had been some resonance to making use of inflation adjusted values in the victim compensation fund. I didn't see that. Um, and just point out that having a fixed dollar amount is not my favorite approach, but it is what it is. Okay. Um, thanks for flagging that for uh for us. Um, we are setting what is it March 10th for further discussion on the details. So, gives us time to think about that.

Thank you. Anything else? All right. With a motion and a second. All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? All right. The consent matters carry as they were presented. We have two proclamations this evening. The first is read across America day.

So pro excuse me proclamation whereas national read across America day is a day to celebrate the joys of reading and the ways of literacy has enhanced our lives. And whereas research has proven that children who read and are read to daily do better in school. And whereas the residents of Golden stand firmly committed to promoting reading as the catalyst for our students future academic success, the preparation for America's jobs of the future and their ability to compete in a global economy. And whereas the city of Golden has provided significant leadership in the area of community involvement in the education of our youth grounded in the principle that educational investment is key to the community's well-being and long-term quality of life. And whereas National Education Association's ReadAcross America Day is a national celebration of reading observed on Monday, March 2nd, 2026 to promote reading and adult involvement in the education of our community students. And whereas Shelton Elementary is again hosting a read across America day and has been inviting city, county, and community officials to read to students in their classrooms. Therefore, Laura Weineberg as mayor of the city of Golden does hereby call on the residents of the city of Golden to ensure that every child has a safe place and opportunity to read together with a caring adult on March 2nd, 2026 in observance of National ReadAcross America Day and recommits our community to engage in programs and activities to make America's children the best readers in the world. dated golden Colorado 24th of February 2026.

And our second proclamation recognizes International Women's Day. Uh proclamation whereas International Women's Day, a global day recognized each year during Women's History Month, celebrates the social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women. And whereas the day also marks a call to action for accelerating gender parity. And whereas the 2026 theme of International Women's Day, give to gain, emphasizes the power of reciprocity and support. When people, organizations, and communities give generously, opportunities and support for women increase. Giving is not a subtraction. It's intentional multiplication. When women thrive, we all rise. And whereas International Women's Day is an opportunity to recognize, reflect, and celebrate the progress made to advance women's equality and to expand opportunities for women in today's society. And whereas the History Colorado Center for Colorado Women's History will celebrate with free general admission on Saturday, March 7th, and Sunday, March 8th. Visitors may view the historic house, take part in a historical scavenger hunt, and celebrate the accomplishments of women both past and future. Therefore, Laura Weineberg as mayor of the city of Golden does hereby recognize March 8th, 2026 as International Women's Day and call this observance to the attention of all of our residents. Together, let's forge a more inclusive world for women dated in Golden, Colorado, this 24th day of February, 2026. Thank you. Um, next we'll move our agenda to consider what was previously item 7B, which is uh first reading consideration uh setting a public hearing for a second reading and or second reading public hearing for ordinance 2288 which is regarding the historic preservation chapter of our municipal

go. Yes. Good evening, council. Thank you so much for the notice to close items. We had time to prepare our prepare a presentation for you this evening and it is

the Olympics were over. Promise I made one. Um if it's not working

that's good.

We'll just look at that. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Uh, okay. So, the item before you this evening is first reading of ordinance 8, uh, 288 2288. It's a historic preservation ordinance with the update to the, uh, regulations, processes, and procedures for historic preservation in the city of Golden. not working. Can you please Okay, so the um the goal of the overall rewrite was to update processes, modernize and clarify board review procedures, align with History Colorado and the Secretary of the Interior for our standards uh to maintain our certified local government status. use best practices, address policy issues that have been identified uh throughout the process and respond to the recommendations of the policy report. So all those were included into the rewrite um into the rewrite in chapter 1858 at least the new version um kind of the whole framework was reworked uh because there were so many changes that needed to occur. We really just started from scratch and rewrote the entire ordinance. So that's why no red line was included but sections of the ordinance were uh maintained and many sections the of the ordinance were updated. Uh first off, we updated the overview and purpose statements in the code to match our policy statements and our updated uh language that we have um for guidance for historic preservation. We also added and updated a number of definitions that were missing from the code um and to make administration of the chapter easier to understand what

we're all working with when we talk about demolition, contributing, non-contributing, those all those things updated and defined. We updated the eligibility for designation criteria to ensure those are aligned with both history Colorado and the secretary of the interior and we revised procedures and review criteria for designation of individual structures and districts ensuring that both of those had had specific individual criteria for review and processes associated with those. Next part of the code uh revised the regulations, procedures and processes around certificates of appropriateness, including adding a new certificate of appropriateness called a minor certificate of appropriateness. U that section of the code previously said or has says today that any work to a historic house falls under certificate appropriateness. Now that could be that could be a variety of things. So the code now lists out a number of smaller things, water heaters, roof replacements, things that do not need to go to the board but that can be administratively reviewed. Um and we also revised the regulations, procedures and processes for demolitions as that had provided those were not always clear when we were processing those. And then finally uh the next the final parts of the chapter we defined the area of the city for commercial building reviews over 50 years old kind of clarifying that the downtown area is the area that is intended for that review. And we also uh revised chapter enforcement p remedies and penalties which were uh which were not very flushed out currently. And then finally we updated the order of operations um to ensure that the historic board was reviewing cases before they went to planning commission for any um for any s um adjustments or variances. So that way that input was received um by at

planning commission that historic board had already reviewed it. Um I just want to highlight a few changes in the code that are more specific. The first thing I want to highlight is that the voluntary nature of the code is is remaining unchanged. With the exception of landmarks, except for landmarks which are today not voluntary, all application adherence is voluntary, including for certificates of appropriateness, commercial buildings over 50 years old in downtown and demolitions. Um those we included processes and procedure updates for all those applications. And we also added a clarification that the applicant can ask for the board's oversight on certificates of appropriateness. So what that means is that if an applicant goes to the board and they um say we want to follow our application, they can agree to it at the board and the board can hold them accountable for adhering to their application as received by the board. Um next we really looked at contributing versus non-contributing. Um currently the version of 1858 does not define or give any direction on how to review non-contributing structures. So currently we are just sort of using best practices.

Thank you. Um non-contributing structures have always been a part of review in historic districts that remains unchanged in this in this new code. Um however specific criteria have been added to review how to review non-contributing um and they are less specific than contributing structures. Um we also added administrative certificates of as I mentioned earlier um and like specified what they are referring to and how to review those um I want to just briefly talk about the difference between or talk about the difference between contributing and non-contributing structures on slide so contributing property means a property that retains its historic character including architectural character or within a historic district and it's within the period of significant ificance for that historic district. So if a period of significance is between 18 let's say 1869 and 1950 um that structure is part of that time frame. A non-contributing property um slide is means a property that does not retain that character or it's built with outside period of significance for the district. Um so I just have some examples here on the slide. That's a currently in the district property that is non-contributing. Um I also want to talk about on next uh yes so I want to talk about why we have contributing versus non-contributing structures because I think it's an important distinction. So the designation of non-contributing can be given to a property for a wide variety of reasons and our a lot of them have to do with our survey surveys that we have on file for these districts. Um, on the left of the screen, you'll

see what we call a windshield survey. A windshield survey is a it's literally a page and it might have one sentence about a property. It doesn't give an architectural style. Um, it often doesn't give a condition. Um, it's very non-specific, but in our ordinance or within our districts, we have several properties that are considered non-contributing because they only have a windshield survey associated with them. on the right on the slide you'll see what a full survey looks like and our more modern surveys that we receive today look like on the right they're several pages they include the full history uh conditions things like that so over time we have improved the surveys that we receive including getting better information about those non-contributing or contributing structures however um we have hundreds of surveys um within our districts and they are in ving stages of completion or um accuracy. So that flexibility of maintaining uh maintaining some uh maintaining that review over non-contributing structures and having some review criteria really assists the board in reviewing those those structures as they come forward and in some cases the non-contributing factors of a property can be reversed. Um so that's something we always want to encourage. Uh we might have let's say we had a a couple years back where something was contri considered non-contributing because it had bars on the window. Well, bars on the window can definitely be removed and that factor is now no longer um a factor and that applicant was able to go through for tax credits because they got their designation remove that designation of non-contributing removed. Um next slide I want to talk about the land use cases. Um, I mentioned before about the order of operations. Um, and that specifically, we recently

had a case where, uh, planning commission looked at a stone barn off of Cheyenne Street. Uh, it's right around the corner from here. Um, it sits on the property line and in order to preserve that barn, uh, planning commission had to grant it for an addition to that barn, planning commission had to grant it a major adjustment for enhanced compatibility. historic board had reviewed that prior to going to planning commission and and staff and planning commission used that factor as one of their one of their findings for the um giving that that um to uh sorry that major adjustment and therefore preserving the barn. Next I want to talk about the revocation process. The current code does not specify a revocation process for inclusion in a historic district or not inclusion. Um that was a practice that had occurred but there was no specific language outlining how that should occur or why that should occur. So the current code includes uh specificity around and direction around that process as well as a specific hearing process for individual revocations and criteria for that review. Uh we talked about commercial buildings um and limit and due to council's direction in September of last year we updated that language to kind of match to match the downtown area map which was found in 1840 and there are associated review criteria that look very much like historic historic guidelines already there. So we um gave historic board the ability to uh review change only changes to buildings 50 years or older within that geographic area utilizing those same criteria that would be review used in a review under zoning. So it just sort of made the process easier and and

the review criteria the exact same. Um and this is the map of the area. Um it kind of bounded by uh Highway 58 and 14th to the south. Um bounded uh just uh north and north and east of Washington and Ford east and then over to the commercial area commercially zoned areas um within Arapjo 10. Um so in summary uh the code update reg updated regulations it refined process details and clarified procedural procedures for the most part and in all these categories. Um this code rewrite is part of a larger project that we are undergoing with historic preservation here in the city. Uh this time last year, city council adopted the policy study report and with that being adopted, staff began the rewrite of this chapter and is bringing it forward at this time. Um the second part of this of this update is doing the architectural guidelines and the context statements which will help us narrow down that period of significance for the historic districts was currently the districts currently do not have a set period of significance. We're going to be updating that. Um and that's expected to go to historic board and planning commission and we're expecting to do engagement April through June on these guidelines. currently underway with our consultant. Um finally, um for this particular chapter, uh historic preservation board has re reviewed drafts of this chapter on in

July and August and September of this past year and reviewed the current code on December 10th, 2025 and recommended approval. Uh city council also reviewed in September giving staff direction on the current uh current d is presenting the current draft with all requests and updates as well. I also want to mention we do have um Mr. Markley here from the city attorney's office who will be assisting within your legal questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. This is um just on first reading, so good opportunity to ask questions, but we are not looking for a decision or vote tonight other than do we move it forward or not. Um Since we have our experts in the room, time to ask uh your questions and I'll turn to the folks who pulled it off of consent. Um councelor Chris.

Yeah, sure. Um so first off, I I do like we're trying to strengthen historic preservation. So I want to get that clear out there. Um but actually after speaking with councelor Cameron, we do both formally believe this should be formally reviewed by the planning commission. um as we feel for a variety of reasons, some similar and some different because you know how that usually goes with Don Island. Um but in my in my perspective like the exclusions and limitations we're providing here around preservation for both residential and commercial really affect the character of the neighborhood. I'm I'm seeing kind of a slippery slope scenario. um especially which in turn affects planning commission's decisions because we do use these comparisons to say oh four houses down there is a brand new square building and then suddenly all of these things if they're excluded might be a bunch of brand new square buildings and does that actually become more compatible with the neighborhood and I I just because we do write even just in the updates to general code and guidelines going forward in planning commission and I speak of this as my experience as our past chair uh we really do care about enhanced compatibility and I I want to make sure that this is getting reviewed by them um because it is literally in our duties in the planning commission section of our code that they will be having general supervision of all planning development and expansion and growth of the city. So I really urge us to go back to them. I know we said we're going to review the other things but I want to have this part go back to them too before we take a vote. And that was my first comment. Council Kim.

Yeah. Um I I agree of course um that we should delay it until planning commission can look at it. And one of the other reasons I want to have them look at it as you pointed out there are many properties that either have uh wind windshield surveys or possibly no survey. Um let me back up for a second. I don't think we're going to have too many more new historic districts. So, while I think it's great to tighten up the code of what it takes to form a new historic district, have the right processes, public statements, and all that stuff, I think it's great to to lay that all out, but I think the bigger issue is going to be over time um revocation, people wanting to, you know, get out of the historic district because they want to make changes that are not uh in keeping with the historic nature. And if we have if we don't have or if all we have is a windshield survey or we don't have any survey and then we use and we are not h using the criteria of how they got into the district to get out of the district to say you know it's no longer compatible then I feel like the process is basically broken and what we have what we've proposed is no you just have to prove that you are no longer historic. But that's a I don't say he said she said kind of thing, but one person could say, "Hey, Joe Blow lived in his house in 18 Well, let's even pick a later year in 1949 and Joe Blow was really important to Golden, but another person thinks I've never heard of Joe Blow until you brought that up." And that one criteria of the historic nature of the house is enough to not allow that person to be revoked out of the district. So I think

we need a lot more scrutiny on these criteria of how something got in so that we can be really clear about how to get out and I don't see that nexus. The other thing um with respect to the questions I asked of staff and I'm very troubled by is for a non-contributing structure within a historic district if they're doing work the proposed work has to be compatible with the property's current design materials features size scale and proportion and massing or the proposed work is compatible with the historic districts the historic district's design materials features size scale and proportion and that's for a non-contributing structure. I just don't see that we can hold a non-contributing structure to almost the same criteria. As you pointed out in your response, there's other criteria for being historic structure. But in practice, uh when you say they've got to be held to these same criteria, it it's disturbing. So for for those reasons and the fact that we have a form-based code that is supposed to cover non-contributing structures, um I'd like to see a full review by PC and work through some of those details.

Go ahead.

Um so I agree with both of them that this should be reviewed by planning commission before um it's adopted. Um, I kind of have a different opinion on the contributing versus non-contributing structures. And I think that if you the map you had up that showed the non-contributing structures in the middle of a historic district, to me that's and the fact that it's kind of uh it's not a permanent designation like you say in um in the ordinance that the contributing or non-contributing may may be changed at the board's discretion. To me, that is exactly why all of everything in a in a historic district should be held to the same standards, not have different standards for contributing versus non-contributing structure because they are all part of it and they all contribute you know officially or unofficially and maybe not today but maybe in the future. So I I don't want I don't think we should draw a distinction within the criteria between contributing and non-contributing structures.

I'm going to weigh in and then anyone else who wants to raise a hand and weigh in. Um I appreciate that three of our counselors served on planning commission and feel very passionate about our zoning code and process and want to thank you for bringing that to the attention. Um I also want to caution us um from applying planning commission's authority around zoning with the distinct authority we have given the historic preservation board over what um they do for our city. They are two distinct boards that while um the recommendations for historic preservation board can go to planning commission if they're reviewing a case, it is distinct and we've given them distinct authority. Um and so I'm concerned um about planning commission maybe um uh inserting uh with this separate uh board. So if um you know council decides to put this on hold for planning commission, I really do want to caution that. Um we have had this board reviewing it, working on it um with plenty of community input with our input um last year as well and um uh we have amazing volunteers on that board who are community members who really care about uh improving the process um a clarity around a situation that is very different from planning commission. it is voluntary. Um it is not a strict um you are held to uh the decisions of that board and so it is very distinct um work and I think our existing board has done a phenomenal job working through this over the last year and really appreciate everything they did and their unanimous approval to move it to council. So, um I wanted to just urge caution um in inserting another board in the work that has already been um very well thought out and worked on by um our volunteers. And I'd like to ask one of those if she

has anything to weigh in since you were a big part of that process over the last

Thank you. Yeah. Um, so I I in listening to all of you, I heard um two or three different things and I'm not sure that they all necessarily tie in together, but for being under this same ordinance with this guideline update. So with the suggestion to have planning commission review, I I can appreciate and I've witnessed um in the years that I was on historic preservation board where there is overlap between planning commission and HPD or historic preservation board, it might be valuable to scope all the way down to the specific overlap areas that you all were concerned about and keep it really refined to the mayor's point around being really intentional and thoughtful because they do serve distinct purposes. So, I could be supportive of a very specific granular planning commission review before adoption um for the sake of making sure we're all rowing in the same the same direction. Right? Those boards, we're going to have new members this year. So, I think it's always helpful to have folks kind of center on that same direction. Um the the second part around the contributing and the non-contributing structure. I I can appreciate that historic preservation is um a very specific kind of animal one that I would not be familiar with but for having served on the board and I can assure you having questions coming from zero knowledge to what relevant knowledge I have now um those definitions around contributing structures and non-contributing structures factor in heavily. Um much like affordable housing, there is no one magical solution. Historic preservation is an overlayment of different perspectives, which is why we have those first criteria for consideration for contributing structures and then can acknowledge that there's keeping within the context of that district or neighborhood with non-contributing structures. And that's kind of the

self-regulation method for folks who move into and out of the neighborhood to have an opportunity to both inform how those neighborhoods evolve but also still adhere to what was originally however long ago that the district was formed intended in that preservation aspect. So I don't share um the concerns around the contributing and non-contributing structures. Again that's coming from my history with historic preservation board. Um I can appreciate with the partnership with planning commission where that might be valuable in a very scoped granular way. Um but we're really operating from I mean the of the interior to the state of Colorado, history Colorado, all the way down to how that interiorly affects our historic preservation program um all the way up into like the certifications that we follow. So, so having all of that knowledge that I would not have had but for serving um I'm extremely comfortable with pushing this forward much like I voted on HPV in December of last year.

Let me hear from others who haven't spoken first and then we'll go back around. Oh, thank you. Um, I agree with the mayor. I think, um, HPB has done a great job here. We know it's been very thoughtful. It's been in the works for a year. I also appreciate when staff hears us during the study session and comes back with what we had talked about and what we had suggested and they had already brought it to the board for this unanimous vote. So, I definitely appreciate that. I like councelor connect don't have any concerns with the criteria for contributing and non-contributing and I believe moving forward on this is the right thing to do tonight.

That's you don't have to I just have some questions. Sure. Right up front you said this is voluntary, right? That's correct. So it has no T. Well, with very small exceptions, the majority of the ordinance is voluntary. So what does what do the homeowners receive in exchange for a historical preservation designation?

So um if they are a designated structure um they get some additional review by historic preservation board. In many cases that means we get additional community review on on structures going into neighborhoods and that um has materially impacted the community's reception on some of these structures coming into the neighborhoods. They don't always start out in a way that the community is happy with them. And then as we work through the process at historic board, we can refine that vision and ensure and and try to convince and and you know work with the owner to get something that maybe works in the neighborhood better, although voluntary. Um, as far as if they're renovating a structure, repairing a structure, that property, because we follow the Secretary of the Interior standards and History Colorado's guidance under our certified local government status, uh, our owners in the in the city are eligible for state tax credits.

Okay. So, um, it is really important that whatever the board approves can also be approved by History Colorado for administration of those tax credits. So they really rely on the board's review to be accurate and following the guidelines and secretary the interior standards and those guidelines currently as I mentioned are part of kind of part two of this project. They are currently underway. We are we've received a draft from the consultant and they we've sent revisions back and are hopeful to get that out to the community uh later this spring. Um but they do are eligible for tax credits. They do follow the rules. Gotcha. Thank you.

All right. Everyone's we can go back around. Did you want Did you have more?

Just one final comment. Um well, couple final comments. Um so I would really urge everyone to look at section 2.4.4.070 duties of planning commission. Um which goes over exactly why I think this falls within the purview. And I will say as even just the presentation today, we didn't show oh here's a house planning commission approved. This always leads into the decisions of planning commission and when it comes to these code decisions, planning commission is reviewing these saying, "Oh, historic preservation board give it a designation." And that is something we do seriously take into account. So if we decide to exclude people more and more and more, it's it's we honestly want to be like, well, is this going to affect things? It's going to affect the overall character of the neighborhood. You put a house dead in the center and we say, oh, you're excluded. It's fine. How does that change things? And I just I think having an extra review when it falls in criteria that we do take into account when approving would be helpful because like I worked on the sustainability code mixed with planning commission they do overlap and times when they overlap I think we should be working together and yeah that's just kind of my final piece is

I I just want to ask a clarifying because I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for initially I thought you were asking for planning commission to review this ordinance and the language code language change But now I'm hearing perhaps that planning commission has a role in the process to review cases or did I like I I'm not sure I'm I just want to make sure I'm clear about what you're asking for a planning commission review.

Yes. Review of this of the code changes but I'm saying it's relevant to be handinand because whenever you are getting a case from implanting commission you get that certification you get the letter of appropriateness and that taken into decisions on the planning commission for land use cases and that gives it teeth. So it might not per say have necessary teeth that we have to enforce, but that is taken into account because it shows that they're willing to go above and beyond preserve the character and work with us and preserve structures and things that we take into account in our comprehensive plan. So So did that answer your question? Sort of. You want them to review it but not to add planning commission into the process of No. No. I just just to review to see what's in here.

Yes. But yes. Yes.

I was just going to repeat um say what um councelor Kinski just said. We there is a lot of precedent of boards reviewing things together and working on on um stuff together. Planning commission MTAB have worked together. Um planning commission sustainability boards. This is historic as it relates to land use. And therefore, I really think that um the the code language and the code changes should be um reviewed by planning commission as well because there is that overlap in um in both in like uh some of the remodels and renovations and um uh additions that that both boards see at times. So, I think it's really appropriate for both of them to look to review the language and the coding but not at another step in the individual planning approval process

just for them to have awareness of the like of the code changes. I I guess I just want to what are they of like what what's the intent of just you know um to review it if they have feedback. Yes. Okay. To have feedback, suggest changes, suggest improvements.

Yeah. And following up on that, um I did a deep dive on this ordinance um due to my history on planning commission and I found things that I thought were not specific enough that would allow us to make decisions that were objective. And I'd like to ask the city attorney if any of my questions or comments gave you pause and you agree and then it would support the idea that a second set of eyes that look at this kind of thing like planning commission would add value. I mean if it doesn't add value if it's just proforma it's pointless but if it adds value because it adds specificity where it could be needed I'd appreciate a a response to that because I'm sure you've read that as well.

Sure I can uh speak that a little bit. I think um as we noted in the the response in the email to your questions, uh the one where we could suggest some alternative language would be on the revocations after the fact, the ones that occur, you know, years down the line as as and as you put it, kind of tie that more directly to the reasons it was landmarked or designated in the first place. So that that is one where I think we could u work on some additional language or bring some additional language. I think spur to Sandra and Scott on the how and when we would do that but uh okay I guess one of the things that happens during second reading is we try not to legislate from the dis so if you agree that in that area a little better specificity is warranted and could put that in our packet so that we're not legislating one of the dies I don't want to have to make a proposal to say accept this language have it shot down and say well that didn't the way I want. I mean, if if there really is agreement that it could be better, then I would suggest

I think we're we're we're in consensus that there is one section that could be tightened up and we can certainly bring back language um for consideration uh in second reading and um it's actually something we've already worked on. So, um it's something that we can certainly do and take a look at if if council is interested in that. Um we can absolutely do that.

I I appreciate that. And and while I have the floor for a second, the designation of the historic district, it seems to have a time stamp on it associated with whatever the state or uh you know, basically the state or county um rules are around historic designation at that time. I didn't really see a tie between a changing designation landscape and this revocation thing. Like is it from when the district was put in place or as it moves along it's a moving target and the revocation is against a different set of criteria. So I' I'd like to just have that clarified. Is against what criteria are we doing?

Sure. Well, I think as we have drafted it right now is that it would be against the new criteria. But I think if we are able to address your point about having to disprove every possible criteria that that exists that we can tighten that up, I think that will become a maybe a moot point. Um it just won't be as subject to the changing laws. It will be more tied to specifically a district's um you know significance, its its era, things like that. Okay? and those shouldn't change too much over time.

All right. Finally, um I really appreciate your willingness to make some changes. Um but I'm just one person who dug a little deeply and there might still be some value of having uh PC review it and also find areas uh that that may give them pause and that you might realize could be better. So again, just

I think I might be the last one to go at least in the in the latter back half. Um, one of the most valuable things that I learned within historic preservation board is that this is a community exercise. Um, I've been partying to conversations where folks have said, "We want more teeth. We want HPV to have more teeth." Like planning commission and other folks who get a little weary and say, "Hold on. Let's be thoughtful before we start mandating what people can should do with their personal property. So that's why they turn into more community- based conversations because I have always been of the opinion I'm a little concerned about the appropriateness with a voluntary opportunity like historic preservation for there to be too much teeth or too much oversight. It's different when it's our our planning and our zoning and our building code. Of course, those things have an effect on the character of our neighborhood. The reason that this language can feel and and I've experienced this myself can feel sometimes subjective and maybe a little confusing is because it is dependent on the community conversation that happens and that happens through historic preservation board meetings. Um my very first introduction to that was when the aster house was being discussed. Not sure if you guys remember was quite the awakening um around where the level is in our community. So leaning on the the voluntary portion of it. Yes, there are benefits and tax credits, but it really is to me an exercise of that district or that neighborhood or that section of the community coming together and coming to some sort of not necessarily unanimous agreement, but shared consensus on the desired context of whatever is happening in their neighborhood, be it a demolition or a modification or potentially a demo in a new build. And I think that's where the actual value in the historic preservation process is. Um, in addition to of course preservation itself, but preservation is tricky and any combination of these factors and

perspectives is what can add to the strength of of that subjectivity for why something might warrant being preserved. So, I think it's it's helpful for me. I was always having to reframe going in this is intentionally not black and white, Sandra, to myself. I talk to myself often. This is intentionally not black and white. And the reason because we want to land in a in a place where the folks who have opted in by purchasing or living in one of these um neighborhoods or districts have the opportunity to help kind of inform as much as reasonable within bounds over time as the community itself changes. So I know I know personally that's been a frustration point for me but by design had to get over it by the nature of historic preservation board. So I think you touched on it really clearly at your heart if it's voluntary and and to me the output that is meaningful is again that shared consensus when those conversations happen.

Thank you. Um to I'll just make two comments and coming back with some more specificity around the revocation. I'm it'd be great to have an option as councelor Cameron has asked for but also um I'm not sure how specific language I want in the ordinance because right now it out for revocation that you know the burden of proof is on them and they must provide the documentation and um I I don't know how specific we want to be and all of the documentation required in the ordinance. So um options there would be yes and I'm happy to bring back the original this ordinance and then just like an option so that you all can decide to discuss.

Thank you. Because yeah once it's in ordinance versus Yeah. I I I like the the um the inclusiveness of what's written in there. It could include this plus other things because that will change over time for sure. Um the other thing I just wanted to make mention and I don't know if it's in the existing code but I really appreciated at the start of the ordinance um the listing of uh intent purpose and intent and uh really speaks to what councelor connect said that is to draw reasonable balance um between uh private property rights and the public interest in preserving our cultural historic and architectural heritage. Um and I think that you know and that we're carefully weighing um with alternatives. So, I really like having the intent in there. Um, I think that's a really valuable ad along with all the process and procedural pieces that have been put in there. And I appreciate it's subjective. Uh, so a case that comes in front of this council could be decided very differently from a case that comes in front of council 10, 20 years from now. Um, or or HPV board because it's HPV board plus council on some of these and it is subjective to what the individuals in those positions at the time uh determine. So, um uh that's that's clearer through here when it gives specific um uh authority to city council and to HPV and the decision-m and I thought that was very clearly delineated in a way that it hasn't been in the past. So, I appreciate those changes.

Any other comments? Uh we need to uh have a motion on this item. Um and the original uh motion was regarding um second reading and public hearing but certainly can entertain uh a different point of order about refer if it is the decision of the council to refer to planning commission. We would want as far as time frame um we would be able to the soonest we will get to planning commissions is in April. They currently are working on the comprehensive plan and have very full agendas. Um, and they want to bring that back to historic board after planning commission to look at those if there are any changes or recommendations. Um, and that would occur as soon as in May and then we have a brand new board in May. So, the timing is a little uh we just would need to be very particular about the timing and then we we could probably get back to you all in probably about June estimated time frame.

Thank you. Everything going great, right?

I move approval of ordinance 2288 on first reading and scheduling of the second reading and public hearing on March 10th, 2026. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. More discussion before we vote. Can we add Can we add an amendment sending it to planning commission or would we have to vote down the current? We have to vote down the current. Can I ask a clarifying question?

If we are able to have time on the calendar in April with what HPB is providing, there's always the opportunity to amend in the future beyond the adoption of this. And I believe there was a conversation in December where there was I asked a similar question, right? And and it was all related to that timing because we had a new HPV crew anticipated coming in and I think the thing that gave us some level of confidence was that we could and and would revisit if necessary pending an additional review somewhere. Right.

Correct. Uh just uh I think we mentioned this at the study session back in September, but the update of the guidelines and context statements may spur further amendments to this ordinance as we incorporate whatever engagement and changes the public wants to see in those guidelines. So there is the opportunity in the future to look at this if something isn't you know to look at this again. We do anticipate um that there would there could be changes given the new guidelines and context statements that are currently underway and that would probably be sometime this year or early early next year the latest

and I I can't remember I know you an earlier slide it had sort of that time frame of community engagement does that also include planning commission for this next step of the guidelines

correct um I would anticipate going to planning commission hopefully in April or May with the guidelines they will also have a brand new board. So, uh you know, we'll just have to kind of balance out, you know, how much we bring to these boards. Uh but I had anticipated bringing the guidelines at that time. If we have the ordinance also, I think that we may have to push back the guidelines a little bit just to kind of give space for these large scale reviews. Uh but we could figure that out given the direction city council. But the intention for the next step after the ordinance with the guidelines in the other context was to go to planning commission and community

and the Yes. and historic board. So all three. Thank you. Just want to clarify what you just said and she agreed to is that when we get those guidelines, we would be re-evaluating this ordinance to see whether it all meshes well and that review would include planning commission of the of both elements.

Correct. We we don't know exactly what will be in the new guide. I mean, we have an idea, but we have some some ideas that we're currently working through with our consultant given some of the public feedback we've received. Um, and they could they could uh and I don't want to maybe getting a little ahead of ourselves because we haven't discussed this publicly, but you know, they may make they may incur changes to 1829 or 1840 um if they are more zoning based changes. not to say that and so that would have to include planning commission if those were recommendations by the public

or by historic board or by commission. So we do anticipate a community conversation around around the guidelines and and you know not closing the door on doing updates to other sections of the code even 18 including 1858. I would just recommend since you have that time frame of several months for the guidelines that intentionally including a presentation to planning commission at a meeting instead of just you know community meetings would be a welcome addition to that timeline. Did I hear correctly that the guideline process will likely include updates to this code that we are hearing first?

I don't want to say for sure. We're not far enough along in the guidelines yet, but there could be changes given whatever community engagement or community um that may say, well, we need to incorporate another review standard or we need to to to incorporate these guidelines properly. So, they may I don't think it would change the overall structure of the code, but it may change small element it may change elements of it in how it integrates into the review. We we kind of intentionally frontloaded this chapter um because we felt that the chapter needed so much so much work, but we wanted to get a framework out in the community and know how we wanted to understand how the guidelines would be applied given the ordinance and and with the current version of the ordinance, we we could not do that well. And so we thought that's why we we frontloaded this ordinance to kind of get ahead of that and then with the intention that we could come back and make changes if through the guideline and context statement process that there are changes requested by any of the parties that are involved with the review primarily historic preservation board, the community and of course planning commission because we do anticipate that design guidelines there are zoning design guidelines and of course historic ones. So they they will have to kind of work together in some way. Yeah, I just want to say I'm willing to go with the proposed motion and second with the understanding that we will intentionally include planning commission in the next round of discussion around the design guidelines, any changes to 18 29 40 whatever. But also keep in the this ordinance and

these these uh these this this 1858 if need I just I want to say sort of even if not needed that we will look at it and make sure that PC has a chance to look at it and if so I'm fine with it proceeding in two weeks. Um so I don't know if I have to make an amendment say if if and only if you also include PC in a discuss at that time frame to include 1858, then I'm fine with it being deferred.

But I think our memo mentions that the process related to the guidelines will occur in spring and summer 2026 and may lead to further ordinance revisions for council to consider in the future. I we've heard agreement that planning commission will be an intentional part of that engagement process. Okay. Um on the record. Okay. So, thank you for putting that on the record. I thank you. All right. Any further thoughts before we take a vote? We do have the motion and second. We've had lots of conver good conversation. All those um in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? No.

Councelor Evans opposed. Everyone else was an I. All right. Thank you. It carries. We'll be back for discussion on March 10th. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we are now on to resolution 3288 which we've had some public comment and interest about. So, let's get to it.

Thank you, Mayor Weinberg and city councilors. Um, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about uh this resolution which proposes new a list of new sustainability rebates um for this year, this calendar year. This is probably our sixth year in a row of offering sustainability rebates. Uh there was a couple of years even before that that uh we did in the early 2010s uh for solar. Um this has been a very popular program with residents and last year we added um to this program as well. So we've been able to expand this program uh to offer a wide range of best practices in sustainability regarding energy conservation, solar water conservation and um and also some waste diversion in here as well. So um I'd like to just give you a couple of updates um and and then we can talk about some questions that you might have about any of the list that's there. Um, every year, uh, the sustainability advisory board, um, holds a couple of public input periods. They did so this year in December, in January. Uh, the board reaches out to residents to get their input. Um, staff brings comments from uh, applicants uh, that we receive throughout the year. Uh, we also reach out to local contractors um, who are installing some of these uh, uh, pieces of equipment to ask about gaps. um that people need help with. Um so it's been uh um it's it's intended to be a thoughtful process um to uh identify gaps um that folks are needing help with uh not one just for the sake of funding projects. Um and and so uh the list that you have is evaluated every year. Some things come off, other

things uh go on. Uh but they're meant uh all with the intention of making progress toward the sustainability goals. So, we have a fairly healthy list um that it's kind of grown into. Uh I uh will say that we've got a couple of new things this year. So, things that stayed on the list include heat pumps for homes, um heat pumps for businesses, which was new last year, insulation, which is a really big um item that is very effective. um uh and uh a variety of electrific electrified equipment, electric heat pumps, electric water heaters, electric induction stoves, things like that. Um on a side note, we just uh are uh working with uh Foothills Regional Housing Authority to put in the first induction stove in one of our city-owned affordable housing units. And so we are uh paying attention to city properties as well. Um, uh, the new ones for this year, uh, are, uh, a healthy housing initiative, uh, that's kind of related to that. Uh, that's kind of a side, uh, effort that isn't totally under sustainability, but it's something that we want to keep an eye on, radon, uh, radon mitigation, which is an important part for everyone, uh, residents and golden owners, um, and and tenants alike. there's been a gap um that uh occurs uh through just uh the structure of the process. There's um market rate radon mitigation that most people install if they're uh at uh selling a property. Uh there's also a state program that covers 100% of the radon mitigation costs for low-income qualified folks. Um so we're missing a little bit in between and it is advocacy for tenants enrolled in tenants who may not be able to control uh any mitigation

efforts of the place that they're living in. Uh but that would like to know and understand what the impacts are. So the board uh uh is was willing to consider a new radon mitigation program uh that's aimed at rental units. Uh so um that kind of fills that part of the gap. $1,000 out of about a2 to3,000 system. Um, so that is a aiming at the health of uh renters um and addressing that. We also have a couple of battery uh new products and systems that the board would like to give a rebate for. Absolutely. In reaction to the recent power shut off, uh there's a couple in here. One is a whole home battery system. Quite expensive to be honest. Um, and battery systems for homes are generally only advisable when they're paired with a solar photovoltaic system, rooftop, ground mount. Um, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to power your battery from grid power. And so the board has paired um a rebate for solar uh photovoltaic systems. I think um our friends at Buglet mentioned that the federal rebates have gone away and so the solar rebate is meant to um help support it can't entirely replace what the federal uh program was. Um but the new $3,000 rebate for a solar system is it would be in place and then another $3,000 for a whole home battery backup system. um they are expensive and so that would um help offset both of those costs. But for folks who don't want to invest in an entire system, um we would like to also offer a mobile option, mobile um power station. Um it's a box about this big. They're not we're not talking about the little ones um that might charge your phone or even your laptop. We're talking about ones that in

a power outage um would essential critical uh um power like your refrigerator or like medical devices or like a whole host of laptops, iPads, phones that all of the kids play with um and be able to support all of that energy usage um during a power outage. That size of a mobile station doesn't cover an entire house, but it get would get people through a couple of days. Um some harder times. Uh and um there's some criteria around what sizes. Um but that would be a $500 rebate as well. Um so those are the the new rebates that we're really looking at. Um I wanted to make one correction that I saw that I mistakenly uh didn't update uh or didn't save correctly in the memo. The board uh sorry, city council through this year's budget approved $100,000 for the rebates this year. So, that's already existing in in the budget for the sustainability programs. Um, and then one last thing is that Dr. Cog has a grant uh from the EPA, $199 million that you might already be aware of. It's a regional grant to look at building electrification. Uh staff have been involved with the creation of that grant, with the advocacy for Golden Residents and businesses through that grant for the last year and a half. That program is almost very similarly like what we've been doing here in Golden for the last couple of years. That program is going to replace some of the funding that we're currently offering or that uh if you approve it tonight, we would offer. So, we'd like to come back when that program goes live. We're not quite sure when this year. It's probably likely in quarter at the end of quarter two or three. Um and we would like to come back and adjust these rebates. Um that get

also gives us a chance to look at what's working well with the new rebates if we need to make any adjustments and also what we would do to um use Dr. Cog's money, the EPA money instead of um uh Golden's money for a certain number of those rebates. Those are going to be around heat pumps um and and electrified equipment. So, we don't quite know the details of that program yet and when it's going to roll out, but we'll probably come back to you later in the year. In the meantime, if you are uh um open to approving this tonight, these rebates will become effective on March 1st. Um and um in an ideal world, we have an easy process that we'll update a little bit more with the form that's online um and get people uh um very clear instructions uh of what they have to submit and a few more administrative rules regarding these new rebates as well. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. I just want to clarify the city budget is 100,000. The memo7 Is that okay? Just want to clarify for the record that that was the update that you mentioned. Um, thanks. Okay. Yeah,

thank you so much. Um, I would like to add that I have been asked multiple times by residents. I've actually sent them over to our sustainability director to what can we do here to help you if you lose power to your home? And this affects so many people, especially in our city. We have all seen this. And I think this is a really good step in this direction of something that we can do as a city because we can't control Excel, but we can provide rebates. We do want to have a backup option because medical devices are important to keep on and I'm in lots of support. So, um any questions? Because I have a question.

Oh. Um thank you. Um so you said we've had commercial um rebates for a year. Um, how like I know the residential ones are very popular. How many commercial rebates have we been doing and are they typically the building owner or the business owner or some combination? We have had very few. Um, it's not uncommon during a first year that the word we need to get the word out a little bit better.

But, uh, commercial rebates are kind of a different animal. Um, councelor Nectton, we we talked about this at DDA last night a little bit more. The scale of commercial is so much larger and it has the potential to um consume a larger portion of rebates. And so when we started last year, we very intentionally um only picked a handful of rebates that were quite small. um electric water heaters, pipe insulation, some smaller uh commercial appliances that might be used in restaurants or heat pumps. Those are great for tenant finishes probably. They are probably unlikely to move the needle very much in a whole larger uh commercial building. So, we don't quite have a lot of uh enough participation. We need to do better promotion, but we also need to kind of seek out um and the board is very interested and this is on their work plan this year to have more knowledge of what commercial businesses need. And because it is such a range, um we feel that with this we can address some of the smaller tenant um businesses, but there's still this um gap of what what can we help with with the larger businesses if we don't have um one rebate of $100,000 that goes to a single business like Kohl's or Home Depot. What can we do to help move that needle with them? So, the board's going to look at that more this year. They will probably come back with some uh adjustments or suggestions to refine those rebates. Um but for right now, we we started off small not to overwhelm the the budget.

Thank you, Teresa. Thank you. Great job. Um I'm thinking back to your very popular meeting, keep the lights on. Um so many people attended. Patty and I could probably take a lesson from you about getting people counselors. You had so many people there. Um it was great and you gave a little teaser about this and um there was a little bit of discussion about the batteries and the battery backup and I recall our fire marshall coming up to the front and talking about these batteries and making a few suggestions that these batteries need to be high quality batteries and not batteries necessarily purchased on Amazon and the like. Is there going to be any sort of restrictions or list of what batteries should be purchased that will be available for these rebates? That's a very good question. I think the the bigger point that we are trying to get at is to purchase durable, reputable um materials and equipment that are UL listed um that have a manufacturer that is known uh might be available in a brick andmortar store um has maybe a direct manufacturer purchase. So the the ordering through Amazon isn't necessarily a concern. Um but the you know uh making sure that people are familiar with the product that they're looking at that UL listing and that this isn't something that says this is a product that is similar to one of the reputable brands. So it's a little bit of a deeper dive into just picking the lowest cost um option. So I think Mr. Bellton and I have a meeting next week. We're going to look a little bit about adding some of those um criteria to this rebate, the UL listing for being one of them just to make sure that folks are are headed down the right direction. But

no, we won't put on any restriction about where folks can buy or what brand. Oh, okay. Thank you. Um go ahead. Um there's a blank next to heat pump water heater for commercial. Is that intended? It is. And um I believe it's because there are a couple of different um sizes. Uh let's see here. Heat pump water heater. Um right underneath it, the light commercial tier one and light commercial tier 2. Those are meant to be subcategories of the heat pump water heaters um because they're different sizes. And so those those

maybe that could have just been combined into one field or I don't know made it more clear that that was actually related they're related to the Is the same true of the electric dishwasher below. It is I will and I'm sorry that it's not clear. I will tell you that we kind of cheat and we take this list um and portions of the Excel Energy list directly from them because we require a match. We are efficient in the way we set these up. That's opposed to sheets. Yes,

that's actually related to my question. So, Excel came out uh with their uh program for medical equipment, home battery storage. Would we allow folks to stack uh with the Excel program with our battery rebate?

I think we would encourage that. Great. Yeah, absolutely. I one thing we just learned about the Excel program. There is a there is an Excel um rebate for a battery, a whole house battery system, but they also have um um I would say um assistance programs for folks that have medical devices that can get a note from their doctor, but also folks that are low-inccome qualified and have the medical device. So, you don't have to be just one of those. You can have all three situations and still have some benefit from Excel. We're learning more and more about that program. Uh the state also has uh its own rebate programs and so we would encourage people to stack with the state's program as well.

So one comment uh through questions during the week uh you touched on how we're going to advertise this. Yes. Because I I have to admit I've got solar, I have a battery, I have all this stuff. I had no idea I could get a refund from the city. So, um I feel like I'm kind of informed. So, um how are we going to make sure our residents are aware?

Uh this is a good question, too. Um it doesn't feel very fun to read a table, a spreadsheet. And so, what one thing that we've been talking about is to kind of create some stories, not not create our own, use residents stories. Why do people need these rebates? in what situation could you benefit from utilizing one of these rebates? And so I think that storytelling can help resonate with people in their own situation and and maybe create some ideas as to how they could benefit from some of these rebates. Otherwise, just reading them on a table isn't so much fun. And um so we're going to do a better job of getting those out in the informer, in the uh the highlights newsletter, on the website, doing media around this, but we want to use real people um not just a table.

So, and the informer has to be turned in by It's coming up, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Well, as soon as you approve it, I read it. Touche. So, I do think on the website, it would be good to have a safety comment dur during the session a couple weeks ago, I overheard a few um people jury reading things. Uh so we don't want to encourage that accidentally. No. So um I didn't write your paragraph. Thank you. Any more questions before we get a motion in discussion?

Not a question, just a supportive comment. I had the benefit of um spending time with Teresa yesterday during DDA. She mentioned, but um I I've been excited about this since we met and talked about it. um when I was on boarding before swearing in. So, I'm really happy to to be here and to get to be a part of this with you and thank you for all of the consideration and the effort. This I I think it's important to emphasize this work was already happening before the PSPS in December. So, this is all kind of like in service of continuing to do what we can to support ourselves and invest in ourselves and um I'm very mindful that there's a lot that happens behind the scenes. So, appreciate the effort very much. Yeah. And extend that appreciation to the board as well. They work really hard on this and I know they've been doing this every year for number of years now and and they really consider all kinds of things that I would never think of. So,

thank you. Great. So, would someone like to make a motion on the resolution? I move adoption of resolution number 3288 adopting a list of additional sustainability rebates offered to the Golden Community for the 2026 fiscal year as funds allow second. Thank you. That's great. Um any further discussion?

Yeah, I'm about to lose $3,500. Um I did not pay attention close enough to this resolution. I'm under contract for a whole house battery backup and uh obviously it's a conflict of interest for me to vote on this. But because I did not recuse myself, I will just say do not apply for the city rebate because I'm going to vote for this because I'm in favor of it. But I am a little bit sanguin about the fact that I didn't accuse myself. But I I I don't want the re purpose of the rebates is to make things happen that otherwise wouldn't happen. Yeah. I'm doing this anyway. So I don't need to rebate.

So I just want to disclose that so that people don't say, "Hey, you voted for that. Are you going to get a rebate?" No, I will not. Thanks for I'd like to acknowledge our public comment tonight. We had Tom here for public comment. He's gone now, but I appreciate his comments. And I see Whitney and her very supportive husband still here. Thank you very much for your public comments tonight and for staying for our discussion.

Um yeah, I just want to say like everyone else, I appreciate all the work on this and I also really like the um the additions of some things that tenants can um can utilize and not just rely on landlords and in the residential in the residential piece as well. And look forward to seeing some of these commercial rebates take off as well. Thank you. Which makes me think there's a lot of tenants in single family residential that are minds related folks. I wonder if we can extend some communication uh around these through that

uh channel because they don't necessarily always follow the city uh communications but um through their residential life. if we maybe want to think about that as an option because there are many single family homes that are rented to mines. All right. If there are no further comments, all those in favor of the resolution, please say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Resolution carries. Thank you so much.

All right. We have one more item on our agenda and it is also on first reading. So, no final vote tonight um uh on the subject matter, just a vote to move it forward or not. And it is our wildfire resiliency code, which we talked about very recently at study session. And we're back. Got to wait for the code official.

I think there's an email presentation. So, you got us. Thank you. I'm Brett Valentine. It's good to see y'all. City fire marshal. I think everybody knows me. Scott.

Um, so, uh, tonight the first reading of the Golden Wildfire Resiliency Code um, and the wildfire resiliency code map discussion uh, from city council study session. Uh, there have been some, uh, changes to the presentation. Uh, no changes to the code. So, um, there has been a change to our recommendation for map. And so, we'll get started real quick. You've seen some of this, so please bear with me as we go through. Uh, we talked about the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Board. They were tasked by state legislation uh, to come up with a Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code that would be applicable for adoption by the entire all jurisdictions, all governing bodies within the state um, which y'all are one. Um and it is the intent of this board to uh create a a wildland urban interface code that protects um the structures and and the uh zone one through three which is the defensible spaces around those structures um from wildfire uh spreading into the urban environment. Um by doing so they they also created a map that uh that that code is applicable for. So we have the state map. Uh this is the timeline. Uh the wildfire the Colorado wildfire residency code was adopted by the state legislators on July 1st of last year 2025. And they gave uh governing bodies until April 1st, 2026 to adopt the Colorado wildfire residency code or something more stringent than that. So we can make more stringent amendments which we have done in some cases here. um we have until July 1st, 2026 uh or three months from adoption uh whichever's less to begin enforcement of the the Golden Resiliency Code in this jurisdiction. So, uh based on the study session that we had with council uh that

that Scott and I were with y'all on, um I I added a halo around the map that y'all suggested um adopting at the time. Y'all halos are fun. Uh wildfire map A, map B was our home ignition zone map and map C was the enhanced structural protection. To be clear, map A is a direct even though it was created by our GIS coordinator um that that is a direct copy from the state map. So it is is representative of the uh the high risk, moderate risk and low risk that the state um has adopted through their map. Map B and C were uh staff recommendations and uh at the time. So, so taking a look at the state wildfire map uh real quick. Um there was an update since our study session. I I admitted to a mistake that I made uh which was leaving out one high-risisk area which was Apex Park. Um Apex Park was changed from moderate to high risk. Uh still class two no matter what. So there was no uh no actual real change to the classification just the hazards. Um and then so we have one high hazard uh 638 moderate hazard class 2 properties and then low hazards 166 which is denoted in um this is an attempt to encompass current and potential wooi which is geographic structures and other human development needs are inter wild land or vegetative fuels. um it does not and I think I made this clear during study session but I want to say it again does not consider immercast um into what may be considered the urban environment. So that is that's something to note here. Map A is being recommended by staff based on feedback from council at their February 14 2025 should be 2026 by the way not 2025 study session. That's all

me again. Um, and that again was based on a uh uh a tailored approach by by council wanting to go with the minimal right now uh with another review in the future of map a to see if it's stringent enough. Um so that's that's comments there from you all and if I misrepresented that you can let me know. uh home addition zone wildfire map map B no change in high hazards moderate hazard class stays 638 and then it adds an additional 400 or it has a total of 491 low hazards. This map is to suggest that there should be a buffer between what the state has offered and what may be reasonably considerably safe for the urban environment. What starts to become urban environment somewhat. Um and It uses the home ignition zone 3 classification from the Colorado State Forest Service. Um, and it creates a 100 foot buffer from the from the from the furthest parcel into the city that the state identifies outwards. And so it does add more of a a strip if you will around especially in the north where moderate goes straight to nothing. So it added a low risk in the northern part of the city where there was none prior to um this will attempt to slow the spread of wildfire into the community. So we get to the enhanced structural protection wire map C. Um again high hazard phase one moderate classification does go up to 639. That's a a road parcel. That's what we discussed during our study session. And a low hazard classification expands to 1889. uh parcels. Uh this is an attempt to prevent what is considered now a wildfire initiated community conflration or wick situation within the uh urban environment within the city um or or even suburban environment if you will as you see to the west side of the city

that would protect a lot of the neighborhoods or add them into that little risk. Um so that's map C. a little bit more background into actually what the code is. Uh so I apologize already because you've already seen this too, but uh this does not apply retroactively unless your illustrious code official Scott Greer determines as a absolute life hazard for some reason. Um just like every other code allows Scott to do. Um the it only applies to the areas denoted in the the wildfire map that you adopt. Um It does it does apply to additions of greater than 500 square feet. Um roof replacement shall comply with fire resistant roof requirements and that's regardless of what classification you're in. Although all the way up to that high uh when reconstructing, replacing, altering or repairing more than 25% of a building's existing walls, the walls in that zone one at 0 to 5 ft, which is critically important to maintaining uh that defensible space and giving that structure a chance to survive during the wildfire. We'll have to comply So that's at moderate high hazards. Fence replacements throughout the WOI will require permitting when near hable structures to make sure the first 8 ft are non-combustible materials. This was one of the changes final fencing. We'll get to soon. And the code official has the authority to address the scene has less property. I was just bringing that up again for Scott. um economic impact we we've talked a good bit about and and we've considered deeply uh the insurance um ramifications for this which are still quite unknown. Uh IBHS which is acronym that I don't it's right there insurance institute for business and home safety it always gets me um has done some studies that show that it increases the cost of new construction by two to 3% to build your house to a wildland urban interface code. Um they

are working IBHS is working with the state of Colorado to do another study to actually see what degree of safety cost ramifications there are. So they'll be classifying uh four or five different uh like this is the bare minimum bare minimum plus bare minimum plus plus and uh that's not the names so don't hold me to it. Um but they're doing that study and we should see the results of that in April. Um, and then House Bill 251182 goes into effect July 1st of this year. And I did get 2026, not 2025 in there. Uh, wildfire risk and mitigation transparency by insurance companies to policy owners, which were all excited about actually having some transparency from insurance companies on why uh, premiums cost what they do and what they can do to help um, drop down the cost and get associated premium discounts potentially for mitigation efforts. So, big win. Um staff recommendations are adopt the gold wildfire residency code which includes golden specific code amendments such as removal of vent fence vinyl as a fencing material option like Justin County uh which is actually just consistent with with Jefferson County including the prohibition of highly combustible plants in zone 2 areas for class 2 parcels consistent with Jefferson County. Those are junipers and and the like. There are three different plant species that you'll find in chapter five that are that are being eliminated in Jeff County and that class 2 which is at uh that 5 to 30 ft or I should say zone 2 my apologies that 5 to 30 ft and then adoption of the Colorado wildfire resency code appendices AB and C. Those appendices are important because they're usually included in the codes that we already adopt like the international fire code, international building code. uh they cover you know what permitting requirements uh construction document requirements and inspection enforcement procedures without those we would have to default to regular international

building code requirements as a as another amendment and these appendices just make it really clear for us. So and then uh the second recommendations adopt the state wildfire residency code map for the city of Golden map A based on council's uh study session remarks the map has been updated include Apex high risk. And if you saw that little orange piece up north that just got added into the city, the junction has now been included in this map. Is no longer noted at the bottom with footnote. It is actually listed as moderate. Very clear on the map. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's start with questions.

Questions? I guess um if we end up going with the state wildfire map um I I know we aren't voting on it until next week or two weeks from now but I think it would be good to explicitly state March 2027 we will revisit the maps um and and put it in writing so that we don't screw up and let it slide. So it we will make sure it's an agenda item uh for March, April next year. Make sure that it shows up in a study session probably and then we'll be able to relate to um are we aware of any insurance issues? Are we aware of any unexpected um events? You had a much better word for it last two weeks ago. So, um,

I'll add raifications. And I I guess the the last comment, and it's not for you. It's really for anyone that's still out there listening. If there are any implications, uh, let us know. If there's any direct impact, you know, again, let us know. Um, because it it's conceivable that a more aggressive welfare map could actually lower insurance rates because most more of the city is hardened in protecting against wildfire.

Um so I got a question on the economic impact. Um so if I'm remembering correctly at the study session, Mr. G, you had an example of um like a roof replacement and going from, you know, standard to what would be required under the new. I think you said this one one piece would have gone up 20 times in price. So remind me remind me that example because I'm I'm having a hard time scoring that with the two to three% number. So they may not be but they'll be close. Yeah.

So for instance um what we typically put on a roof here in Golden is considered to be a class C roof. And what that is is minimum code underllayment which is a 15 pound felt. To turn that roof into a class A roof, we now have to use a product. You all might have heard this before. First of all, it's already required Golden um it's ice and water shield and that's required to be installed at the eaves to extend no less than two feet inside of the warm wall. That's for energy code reasons and for areas that have maybe potential issues for ice daming to things that would naturally cause roofs to fail and leak. that material. Uh, for instance, 15 pound felt would probably run from anywhere from 8 cents to maybe 15 cents a square foot. And so, a roll of that is pretty cheap. Now, when you move to a product like an ice and water shield, brace ice and water shield for instance, that's going to go from 90 cents to $150 a square foot automatically. And that's those are just numbers that I've pulled out of the web. And of the cost of a roof replacement, is that a small like I mean is that a small amount of

the entire roof surface would need to be covered with that ice and water shield because it complies with the couple of standards that now this document would would require is E108 standard and the other one is a UL standard UL790 I believe. And both of those standards apply to um how resilient these products are to the propagation of flame and and spreading of so basically that to meet a class A they meet a 0 to 25 flame spread and that's those products would would meet that requirement in addition to others um even 90 pound roofing asphalt roofing would would meet that standard as well.

Okay. All right. So on the on the previous slide it talks about the economic inputs or e economic impacts um that increase of two to 3% that's like average but for a roof replacement it's going to be a whole lot more than 2 to 3%. Um I would think so. Okay. Are there any other examples that you have that you could think of? I mean because I can understand the two or 3% you know for building a brand new home but um any other like normal maintenance kind kind of things where you would expect a dramatic increase in the costs for um

you know we got to thinking about uh I mean on top of being the class A roof and the underllayment requirements you know you're looking at having to uh put 26 gauge metal flashing in the valleys so you would have a layer of the ice and water 90 roofing which is the same product that the entire roof deck would be covered with and then you would have a 36 of 26 gauge metal that would go in be installed in the valley. So there's the additional um which is not required by code only for certain types of roofs. So there would be additional metal required for the valleys of these roofs um to make them more resilient such that when you know you have embers flying through the air and they land on your roof that they're not able to you know get up underneath the shingles and there's actual metal flashing that would would protect the roof deck or the roof surface better. Um looking at other things um you know class if you're looking replacing a deck in a class two, right? You're you're obviously going to be up against using materials that are ignition resistant or that are non-combustible. So, all of those things do come into play. How much more metal deck cost than a standard, you know, dimensional lumber deck, I couldn't tell you, but we do we do permit them here in Golden. It's not uncommon for us to permit those types of decks. fencing any any fencing within 8 ft of the structure obviously has to be non-combustible or the ignition resistant type materials after that it doesn't care right so all of these things are going to add some cost to construction either by a single project

or the entirety of a new home build and uh you know thinking about you know somebody wants to replace the exterior cladding on their home, all the siding, right? So now, if they're in that class two requirement, that siding does need to be of a non-combustible type material like hard. And quite frankly, that's a very common product nowadays. We see it all the time. So th those type of things I don't think will be as impactful as potentially. Can can I just one point of clarification? You asked about repair costs. Again, this doesn't apply to simple repairs. So, it's just construction. Got it. So, it would be

our current policy with a roof and exterior sighting is if it's under 25%

then it's considered to be a repair and you don't need a permit for that. So, 25 over 25% then we look at applying for a full permit. and not only just repairing the areas, but it's an entire roof replacement. And that's for one type of roof system. So there there are buildings in in Golden that have two different types of roofing systems. It might be a TPO roof and also like a maner roof with shingles, but they would just apply to that specific type of system. So it could be I don't I don't think I've ever seen a class A roof go on a single family home. Okay. K.

That's a lot of detail uh to keep track of. Um I would like clarity by the time we do second reading of of this 8 foot distance from the house because you said well it's really 8t of linear fence but it could be 5t and 3t. I mean if we're all clear on that that's fine but you could also have somebody just do a foot you know some sort of weird decorative fence that is essentially flammable adjacent house. Another piece is um to the degree that we can communicate with uh the local uh proes at Home Depot and Lowe's to say, "Hey, don't sell any vinyl to somebody who's putting up a fence in gold." Like, let's just get ahead of that. That's a thought. Um, one of the things that you just said about replacing roofs uh in class two areas, I guess it is. Uh, it was in May of 2017 that most roofs in Golden were destroyed in a hail stom. That's only nine years out, but I could imagine in about six years, we're starting to reach the end from, you know, kind of fly by night roof replacements. Uh we need to get the word out to residents in those zones that previously did a roof in 2017 that they they need to get a big heads up about the the requirements and I don't know how we do that but it would just be a way to reduce the heat um that we might face. And and to be clear, councelor Cameron, um those those class A roofs are required in class one areas. So that no matter it it's basically

going to the lowest hazard is when you required to put a class on your home. So it would be applicable to all structures in the Scott and right. So so I'm just saying that uh there may be a big need for rooms in the, you know,

well, I mean, I'm certainly hoping that that's not the case, and I don't mean that, it's not meant to be in a bad way, but when when that hail stom hit Golden, it it really put us in a bind staffwise, and we probably at least onethird of the rooftops building, which is around 3,000. Yeah, I I was one of those and I was required to replace a class 4 metal roof that had a lifetime guarantee and my insurer still said, "Thou shalt replace it. If you have any internal any internal water damage, we will not cover it." I was like, "What a waste."

Um anyway, um I have a question just about what's in the ordinance. uh some of the items, some of the sections, it specifically lists class two requirements or class one requirements. If it does not say that, do we presume that it's for both class one and class two? Yes. So class one is applicable in all class two and so that is it says it, but it's very hard to read. Yeah, there's there's just some of them that don't say either. It reads like code. So yes, uh it can get a little difficult, mayor. Um good point. If it's in class two, all class one requirements are. And if it says nothing, then it applies to both. Yeah. So, yes, generally

because some of them say class one, some say class two, and some say nothing. So, I just want to make sure that our interpretation is all the same. Yes. I mean, this code is written in and it's it's similar to the way the existing building code works. If you have a class a level two alteration, then everything in required to do in level two, you're also required to do everything in a level one as well. So it's it sort of compounds that part. I presumed it was the there's no class listed as sense. Um appreciate that.

But uh when it comes to the class requirements, uh you know, not everything in class one, in fact, nothing in class one except for exterior walls is required to comply with section 502 or 503. So really that It boils down to that roofs are pretty much they stand alone by themselves in class one and they do not have to make any of the zone requirements out of section 502 or 503.

Thank you. Um during the study session I was in support of MAPS. I still am. During that study session, you were in support of map C as well. Um, remind us why you are now supporting map A. Thanks, counselor. Uh, staff recommends map A uh based on city council's recommendations of uh taking a a lighter approach in the beginning and maybe strengthening the approach down the road. Um, and so we wanted to to be sensitive to how council felt um about making these decisions. And so that's why staff now recommends map A.

As our fire marshall, what is best practice here? What map? Uh, map C is an enhanced protection map which would uh I wouldn't say future proof, but it it does provide uh future coverage for the city um for for the replacements specifically of roofs in that that zone or that uh that low classification. Um it it was designed to be the most conservative approach in line with our CWPP mapping. Um, so that's that's the map that you know as your fire marshal I would recommend based off of that. But from staff recommend or from city council recommendations, map A is still our staff recommendation.

I have one more question. Um, on map A, anything in white is not considered a hazard. Correct. Are we talking vegetation management also with this map? City vegetation management.

So, councelor that vegetation management by the city is is being led as a as a city initiative um with a committee that involves city forestry, parks, recreation, the fire department, um and city management. And so this map does not necessarily apply to city vegetation. It's always under consideration. We take all hazard maps into consideration when ranking our our priorities for city vegetation. Um, as we did in 22 and 5, we're going to do again in 2026 for veg management. And we are undergoing a CWPP update that will take hopefully more into consideration our ve management

and that will have a different map. Uh, presumably yes, this they will have it will publish its own map updated potentially from our 22 CWP.

Okay, I'll just finish with with where I'm going here on this question. Um, map A has a very large part of Kenny Run as not hazardous at all. Um, the city has gone in and spent considerable tax dollars, completely removing the entire tree canopy in this open space and every single juniper. The city has also spent money raising goats on areas on this map A that are not considered a hazard at all. I find it inconsistent and that's why I still support map C. Thank you, councelor.

Um I have a couple questions, statements. I'm not entirely sure. Um one, we are doing this not as an update to our Golden Plan but in response to a statemandated effort. Correct. This is a separate effort than what we are doing internally in the city of Golden for wildfire. Correct. Okay. So, they are separate related, but this is in response to state legislation, not our initiated change.

Um, I also understand there's a couple of bills right now at the legislature that is looking at what they passed last year. um both in terms of their arbitrary date that every city in the entire state needed to adopt something as well as potentially actually looking to see um is this thing that they adopted actually going to work or be worthwhile. So I know that there's still change happening right now currently in this legislative session while they have still said every city has to adopt by April 1st. So we are working within constraints that are outside of our control. Um and I appreciate you moving so quickly to bring it to us. uh to try to meet those dates. There are many many cities who are unable to meet that April 1 date. So I feel like we are in really good hands that we are trying to comply with this state law um as soon as possible. Um I guess my question is adopting this now. We've talked about reviewing it in the future. Um if there are further changes to state law, um you know I I know you said you were following along as they were doing that. Is that just going to be standard practice of continuing to follow the regulatory side of whatever arbitrary thing they they pass next?

Yes, ma'am. Friday of last week, I actually watched the resiliency board uh quarterly meeting to stay on top of the changes and uh they did mention some of the state legislation, but the board decided not to write a letter to extend. So, that whatever that's worth. I just wanted to back you're following it for us. Support you. I I am trying to follow

I don't have to follow it. Perfect. Correct. Um I just want to be really clear because when we have outside efforts like the state um that is um prescribing things but we have our own internal you know system and collaborative effort amongst the departments and with the community and communication um that that we're really clear that what the state is doing is not supplanting our more extensive efforts um but we are trying to take our efforts and comply with state and and I just want to make sure that we're real clear that we are continuing with our own CWPP and and continuing to improve that irrespective of the state kind of piece of it um that we're also doing. I just want to make sure that I didn't misstate that. Thank you for um clarifying. Any other uh questions before we get a motion and we can discuss further.

The only thing would be a comment. Uh I traded some emails with chief around seeing where the wildfire mitigation um analysis of individual homes are placed on this map. So, it would be interesting to see that uh we're seeing a lot of people taking advantage of the evaluation in the orange and yellow zones for example.

And I I I agree that's interesting information. It is also the city of Golden wildfire map separate from the state and while it's nice to overlay um we may not um line up exactly uh in a meaningful way to drive policy at this level um just because it's it's not the same but appreciate I I I would love an update on how things are going with that um but I'm not sure how it overlays with the stigma Um yes, council.

Yeah, I want to thank those who weighed in um to public comment and also this evening. Um it is a tough decision to to go with map A or map C. But I will say that the map doesn't make us safer. What makes us safer is working on individual homes, working on that fire resistant area and as changes are made, updating your house to be that much more fire resistant. But putting one map or another isn't going to change anything essentially. Uh so I would just reiterate that. And also we've already got data that the insurers are using their own maps and their own data and independent of what we decide. So I appreciate the the input. Um and I agree that we should harden our homes across the board because of flying embers which really you know is kind of buried in this whole thing. Um I'm going to harden my home and I'm I'm not in any of these zones just because that's what we need to do. So, that's my

um so we'll we'll take a vote tonight. You know, again, this is just on first reading. Clearly, um there's a lot more to discuss later this year or at some further point around uh what we're doing as a city and what's happening at the state. So hopefully we can study, you know, schedule a study session or an update uh sometime later in the year. Does someone like to make a motion? I move adoption of or uh sorry I move for

introduction first reading and consideration of motion to publish ordinance number 2290 ordinance of the city council of the city of Golden Colorado amending the title 15 of the golden municipal code to add a new chapter 15.80 entitled wfare wildfire resiliency and code and setting the public hearing for March 10th, 2026. Second. I think I heard all the pieces. First reading, second reading. Public hearing. Terrific. Um, thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Yes. Yes.

Um, I would certainly like to thank Donna and John for chiming in for their public comments. It is very valuable. Um, I can speak as someone who was I will be in zone on any map. My insurance went up a long time ago. I hardened my home a long time ago. Um there's certainly a lot of discussion and concern. I appreciate that. Uh we have our experts here. It is not a hard decision for me to support this ordinance but not support exhibit A. I support NAPC. I'll be voting no on this because when my fire marshal stands in front of us and recommends what is best practice, that is what I will vote for.

Thank you.

Um, I appreciate all of the additional information and um, you know, context that we got tonight. My initial thought on supporting map A was because of that conversation around like the huge increase in costs on the roof and um, you know, hearing your additional information. It sounds like that's one piece of a roof replacement, but it's not like that's not going to make the entire roof replacement increase by five times. Um, so with that was my hesitation on the on the difference of the maths of, you know, the if someone's expecting, you know, to replace the roof at one cost and the estimate comes in at five times that because of our actions, I want to make sure that we're, you know, being very thoughtful about that. So given that, um, I I'm more in line with council vure on this and in support of map C when it comes on second reading.

Any other comments?

Um I will say being on our legislative advocacy a legislative advocacy commission. Yeah, one of those words. Uh I have actually heard a lot of rumblings about the state code changes to this process and the dates and even CML who's our lobbyist is saying there's going to be changes and instead of us having to continue to make all these changes and we go too aggressive little aggressive we need to go more aggressive I'd rather wait and it was only a couple months and I know that there's also 70 degrees in February so that's not great uh but and I do want to revisit this and I can't wait to do that but I think it's just with all of the unknown I will be voting yes on a just so we figure it out. So

all right, we have a motion and a second and no more hands raised. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any oppose? Nay. All right, we have one nay and the rest eyes. We will be back here discussing on March 10th. Thank you all. And with that, we are journed. Thank you.