Board of Review - Regular Meeting

I will call this meeting to order at 3:05. A little bit late and do a roll call here. Luke Corning is here. Ethan Kirk present. All right. Charlie Benny, I see a notetaker, but I'm guessing he's not truly here. Matt Block here. Carlos Mariano here. All right. So, we do have a quorum. There any changes or additions to the agenda? We don't have any changes. Just plugging away. Just plugging away.

All right, we got the minutes. I was able to get a look. Everything looked good to me. I will make a motion to approve those. Get a second. I'll second the motion. Motion second. All in favor? I I

I. All right. Motion is passed. On to updates. Um so the first update that we have for you is um the wildfire resiliency code um is the public hearing for the adoption is set on March 30th for the board of county commissioners and so it's at 4:00. We'll send you out a meeting invite um to it. We would love for you to attend even virtually if you can. Um we're inviting uh Dan Dailyaly. I don't think he's on yet. Um and Barbara Rice to assist with the pre staff with the presentation um on the recommendation for adoption and um love for any of you that want to join. Uh it is a joint public hearing between the board of review and board of county commissioners. And so we'll be seeking a resolution that day to adopt the wildfire Colorado wildfire resiliency code and the Colorado map. Um and so we'll easy lift for you. We'll be working on uh the presentation uh speaking with Barbara and Dan about doing um a little bit of assistance with that lift for us. Um but then you can be present for in case they have any questions or um to just kind of help the board of county commissioners um through the process. So, we'll make sure that you've got that meeting by March 30th at 4 p.m.

and the city so that you're this the um city is hosting theirs on March 17th. So, you're welcome to go to that. Um Chapen hasn't um asked for any board support um with it. I think that they feel like they've already introduced the topic to city council and there weren't any questions when they introduced it. Of course, they're adopting by ordinance. So, it will uh be taken for the second reading and adoption on March 17th. Also, just to give you a heads up that it's when it's happening at the city.

Um this will meet our deadline for adoption with the state. So, then we'll be looking to administer um by July and um staff's been working with Dan Dailyaly. We had a work session together. I think that I had shared that I'd be talking to him about the IFC amendments that he might want to bring forward through the I code adoption. So, he's working on that. We talked about that and then we talked about the administration of the wildfire resiliency code. Um and uh we agreed and we're working on kind of the building department uh IGA that we oversee the building department for the city through uh the county office and expanding that for the administration of the wildfire resiliency code in that John will um be assisting us with the hardening um requirements during building inspection. zoning. We'll look at the zone review when the site plans come in. Um we'll be uh working together on a self-reporting affidavit for homeowners and then doing code enforcement with Don Helmck who has joined us in some of our meetings. So, we have a plan for administration of the wildfire code um when we need to begin enforcing it. So, just want to give you an update that that's in the works and we've made progress on that. Great. And I think that the only other um update that I really have is the one community project. Um we are getting ready to we're in the midst of reviewing the plan draft. That's our comprehensive plan, our long range 10-year um advisory planning document that looks at everything um within our community from land use and housing to economic

development, infrastructure, natural resources, county facilities and services are kind of the different areas it covers. Um, this is the comprehensive plan is an advisory document that informs all of the decisions that city council and the board of county commissioners make as far as development applications. Um, it helps with budget priorities, setting work plans, and so it's not, you know, that sometimes we limit that it's a um document that sits on a shelf and grows dust. This is intended to be used daily. Um if you have any questions about that, we are having um joint work sessions between the board of county commissioners and the planning commission um where we're releasing those um just kind of draft documents and talking about them and that happens the second and fourth Mondays of a month. So um coming up we'll we'll continue that rotation if you have any questions about that. In April, there will be a public um like a town hall of an open house where we'll roll out the plan, introduce it to the community um and really celebrate all the hard work that went into it. But there were this was a uh plan that was created by first starting with uh creating our community values and I know Luke, you've gone to some of those sessions that you have at El Carlos that you have. Um but then we used all of that information to create a vision for the future and this is really the roadmap of how we we um accomplish certain goals and strategies around those different areas. So really exciting um this is a required document under statute a statute um but we've done it completely different this time. We we've tried to create a document that's going to be very user friendly um that it doesn't really matter who you are in the community you'll find a benefit in it. So, um, really excited about that. And so, that is getting

ready to roll out in April for the public. But if you want to come and kind of see how we make the sausage, that'll be happening at the joint planning and board of county commissioner meetings that are monthly. So, I think that's all the updates we have. I guess we're on to old business. No real old business um that we have to report on. um tonight. I don't know if this would be under old business or where exactly, but um I did see Ann, you sent out something on the continuing ed credits. Yes. For ICC. Yeah.

Um yeah, it makes some sense. I'm I'm a little unsure and I think I'm probably not alone on what exactly our status is. So, we took the testing and and what the county I think reads is that has to show evidence of testing, but and I could be wrong, but I can't find anywhere like on the ICC that I am accredited. So, youration your certification um to keep it active does require continuing education. It is less credits than I thought it was based on the document that I'd sent over.

Yeah. Um, but in order to keep your certification active, you it requires um continuing education or retaking the test again um if if your certification laps. So, it's it's a certification. I just can't see anywhere that that actually shows I'm certified through the ICC. And maybe it's just a glitch. But when I try and look myself up, it just shows no certification, no nothing. Huh. I because I can look at

and and I I recall from a while ago that like that testing didn't necessarily give you certification that it just showed evidence of testing which is kind of how the county county stuff reads too. It shows evidence of passing the test but it doesn't necessarily and I could be wrong on that. Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like our language doesn't actually say you need to be certified or you need to be accredited. It shows you need to be you need to show evidence of

Yeah. First, I'll I'll make one clarification for us um for our requirements under our policy in Link County. So, you need to prove that you have passed um you know that that uh the test for whichever level of lenture that you have. In our policy, it does not say that your your certification has to be active. So this is for your own benefit that we're providing this if you want to keep your um certification active. There's continuing education if you want it to lapse. So the policy that we have in Lake County for coming in and being able to register is that you have proof that you have passed the test, right?

So that's correct. But there is a requirement if you want to keep once you've done the work if you want to keep it active then there's continuing education requirements to it and and maybe that's some I think there is some cleanup we could probably do and I don't know if that's part of our process here but just in in some of that language on the testing and and what options are available. I think that's probably something to look into as we What's the concern what I just said does that No, that makes sense. There is one. So, for one thing, I think it's a little inconsistent from what the website says to what the actual resolution or the the policies say and so I think there could be some we'll review

misinterpretation there. Thank you for that because the policy is meant to say we want proof that you've you know you've tested under so part of it is I think on the website and I I might be getting this wrong but I think on the website it shows the option for the inspector's test. I don't know if that's shown on the policy itself on the inspector we we accept that as a when so in the policy we talk about reciprocal licensing. Okay. Okay. So, we added it to the website because it is one of the license or one of the licenses that you can hold or test that you've taken and then you can prove that you pass that we would accept for registration. And just out of curiosity, have people been using that pathway? The inspector. The inspector. Yeah,

we did have several. Okay. Because that because that could be done online, right? And you didn't have to go to a testing center. Okay. So that's one of the reasons some people chose that pathway is because you could do a proctored test online instead of having to go to a testing center. So yes, some did choose to go that way. Yeah. Um then the only other thing and again I'd have to look at the exact language but I think it said something along the lines if you want to do residential then you need the C. If you want to do commercial then you need the B. But it I didn't think it said that if you get the A you can do both which I know a lot of us have done. So if you get the I just think it needs some clarification on that because

I think it just showed the two options without the third of having the A license that would cover all of it. And yeah, so just some some things if there's some wording on the website that doesn't but yes, if you've got the commercial then you automatically qualify to be able to to pull a residential an IBC or an IRC building, right? Yeah, great. But we'll we'll make sure that we'll take a look at the website. Yeah. And make sure that that is all following that. So, thank you for having looked at that. Yeah. Great feedback. Yeah. And I think they were talking about the requirements for licensing. So, Oh, got her eye on first. Oh, or maybe she took it down.

John, you want to go ahead? Um, our individual certifications are on the MyIC site. It's a little bit of a subsite to the ICC site and then you also have to just upload your continuing education credits in there and then apply them to your license to keep it active. Yeah. Okay. So, it's just a physical part that we have to do on our ends to keep it current. Okay. All right. So, how long is our We took the test. How long do we have before we have to take Sounds like there's some confusion about whether we even have to take

if you want to keep if you want to keep your license for your own professional development current? Not necessarily. as long as you can pro, you know, as long as you always keep those test results that show that you passed um the the test, then we would we would accept that as being the requirement for um licensing. Okay. So, we're required by the county to get the continued education. No, we're not. We're you're in order to register as a general contractor in Lake County, you need to provide proof that you pass the test.

So these continuing educations are for accreditation, which isn't required to have account it to keep your license current. So, when you when you pass the test, your license had a three-year period in order to add additional CUS to CES to it and um in order to not have to retest again to have an active okay certification. So, just to be clear because I'm really confused here and I don't know, I'm not that smart. Do I need to do continuing education to keep my license in this county? you know, as long as you could provide proof annually when you register that you have passed the test. Okay.

But passing once, no matter how long ago it is technically is fulfills that requirement as of right now. Right. Right. So if somebody came in and had proof like you know that they had passed some jurisdictions do their own test, but if they had proof that they had passed an ICC or equivalent test, then we allowed them to register. Right. And so what would be the benefit of taking the containing education if if one just to stay current with ICC? Okay. So if one of your customers is like you our insurance requires that you stay accredited.

Yeah. Or I suppose if there's another county that requires like active accreditation that could be key and and just I guess professional development. Yeah. It's not a bad idea to do it anyway. I just wanted to make it clear that two different No, really great question. So, our um our policy is that you have proof that you have passed one one of the uh different identified tests. Yeah, it's good for you guys. We got to do eight hours every year. Do you really? It's just But you can fix this up.

You know, lots of state licenses require continuing education, so it just follows the same model. Yeah. Um, you know, door licenses, all Okay. Yeah. All right. I think it's all the old business, unless anybody else had anything else. We move on to new business. First item here is alternate member position. There's a letter of interest. Um, oh, you have that hand. Great. And a couple copies of it. Danielle Adena.

We did reach out to um Shelby, sorry, Michaela reached out to um Danielle and she did confirm that she'd be interested in the alternate member position as you see in the letter and that she remains interested. So, I thought maybe she would be joining us this evening and and you could have let her introduce herself, but um she provided a really well-written letter kind of explaining her desire to serve on the board. Yeah.

So, we'd be looking for a recommendation um for her to join as an alternate member, which we could take to the board of county commissioners for them to appoint her as such. Okay. I guess I would like to just meet her first before we make the recommendation personally, but I'm not against it. If you can just talk to her, we can invite her um to we can absolutely send her an invitation to the next meeting. Yeah.

And say that they would love you. the board of uh review would like to invite you or they're very interested in the letter you submitted and and they'd like an opportunity to kind of do a meet and greet. Okay. I'd be happy to reach out to two. What would be the best um path there do you think? What that is just fine if you would like to as the chair kind of extend that invitation that's just fine. I can just CC you on it as well. Sure that sounds great. She is our only applicant. A Carlos was the other. So we we received two through our advertising. Carlos is not an alternate member. He's a regular regular member.

Yeah. And yeah, we don't we aren't seeking another regular member at this point. So righted with regular members with five. Yeah. So she would serve as an alternate, right? In case one of us dies. Whatever. Office straight from Luke's. Yeah. Very good. All right. I think that's a good good path forward.

So, we're on to decision on the addition of the eye codes recommendation. And we have Cole and Hope here to help us with that. Thank you for for being available. You're very welcome.

Well, we're really um excited. I know I had sent out the email. You know, we're our hope and our kind of a mission tonight is to hope that we can come to a consensus on which code iteration um that we'd like to move forward with so we can start preparing the adoption documents and the uh review documents for you. So, um, yeah, Cole and, uh, we knew that Hope, you had some questions specifically for Hope and so she enthusiastically said, "You bet she would be here." Nice. So, I think before we go for a recommendation, we should probably just try and get any kind of input we can from Cole and Hope on questions that might be out there between the 2021 and the 2024. Um, I think for hope the biggest thing I'd like to understand a little better is the uh additional additional credits. I forget what they're called exactly, but within each path there's additional credits, but I wasn't sure if those are required with every path or or how that works. So, if you could just expand on that a little bit, I'd appreciate it.

Are we talking about the 21 or the 24? Um, let's say the 24. I think we're leaning towards that. And not to get, you know, too crazy, but are you talking residential or commercial? Let's start with residential.

Okay. Uh so residentially how it works now is uh depending on the size of the home um you will get or you will have the opportunity to um obtain 10 credits. They're called um uh additional efficiency credits. And so there is a plethora of options that are available uh that go above than what the the base code would require. So if you chose to have really high efficient mechanical equipment, that might be contributing to uh some of the potential credits that you could get for it. um you could have and install uh an ERV and have um reduced air leakage and have the opportunity to uh get some credits uh that way. So when it comes to residentially it is one category of credits you just have to get 10 credits of the additional efficiency requirements. Um, and that can be accomplished in a plethora of ways. I think residentially you have 40 options that you can choose from to um, uh, determine how you want to get to the 10 credits. So the idea of it was basically you would make your energy efficiency improvements through the additional efficiency requirements because then it was kind of dealer's choice as opposed to the code saying you're going to put an R4000 in the

walls type of deal. Okay. And I think I saw so and and so are these required with any and each of the the energy pathways that you go down? So uh the big one Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. The compliance pathways.

Yeah. So the the big one um to be aware of is it falls ah it falls into the criteria for um the prescriptive path. So if you go prescriptive you're going to be required to uh um obtain these particular credits. Now, how it's kind of addressed with the prescriptive or I'm sorry, the performance option and the ERRI is um if you go with the performance compliance path, you then have to get a percentage better than what the standard reference design is. And how that's determined is going to be the size of the building and whether or not you install any uh gas fired appliances. So if you have a gas fired a furnace um at that point then you fall under the they call it uh debiasing but it's kind of in my opinion it's a little bit of a penalty for going with any sort of gas fired appliances. you'll have to be 5% better than if you went with all electric um appliances. Okay.

And then again, just like with the additional efficiency credits, the size of the home is also going to have a play in that. So, uh you'll have where uh you'll have to get five additional credits if you are 5,000 square feet or larger. And then for the simulated building performance, if you're 5,000 square feet or larger, then you'll have to be 5% better. So whereas if you were base and you had to get 20% better than what the standard reference design is, then you'll have to be 25% better than what the standard reference design is. Okay?

And then for the energy uh uh rating index, the ERRI pathway, they lowered those scores. Oh, okay. So, a kind of res check if if right now you can pass by being 1% better, essentially the 2024 will say you need to be 10% better for this size house or 15 for this size house. And and it's just different tiers on the on the size of the house. Is that how it works?

Yeah, it it does. And as far as resch check goes, resch check isn't necessarily uh stating that it complies with all of the codes. You do have to click which energy credits you're going to utilize to get to the number that's required because it does incorporate that. It'll say you got to have 10 credits or 15 credits. So, it will do that, but it's it's judging just the thermal envelope component. So if you are 1% better then you are 1% better for the thermal envelope. It's not taking into account uh the additional efficiency threads. Okay.

Okay. So per for performance um pathway compliance you need to do the UA trade-off as well as the um the additional checklist

for the performance path. What you would do is um you're going to use like rem raid or ecatroe because resch check doesn't do the performance. It only focuses on the thermal envelope. If you're trading the other components and going with uh uh you know going with R45 for your compliance. Um, at that point, that's when they're requiring you to be a percentage better than what the standard reference design is. Okay, gotcha. I guess I was kind of misunderstanding what REST check was actually doing.

Yeah. Well, RES check does have a button that says going with the the performance path. Um, I wish they would remove it because it no longer does that. Um, it only does the trading of the thermal envelope. Um, so that's the UA tradeoff. Is that right? Uh, that's what they call the UA tradeoff in the 2018 edition that you guys are currently on. Okay. The name changes in the so that's the only reason I just want to make sure. Yeah.

Okay. So just to beat a dead horse, if a builder was to choose performance um compliance path, they would then get um the building modeled essentially through like rem REM rate you're saying? Yeah, rem rate eotrope something of that nature. Okay. And then in addition to that there's the the checklist. When you mean the checklist, are you talking about the additional efficiency credits? Sorry. Yes.

Okay. So, if you go with 405, the simulated building performance pathway, you don't have to comply with R 408, which is the additional efficiency credits. How they kind of incorporate that is that they say instead of just being equal to or less than what the standard reference design is, it now has a set percentage. So that's where the 20% 25% um comes into. Copy. Okay. Thanks.

Absolutely. Any other credit or questions on the credits for the residential side? I guess I'm I'm just wondering. I know the number of credits changed from 21 to 24. So, I'm a little confused because I did a Chaffi County application recently on the 2021 code. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm pretty sure the way they showed it was if you went prescriptive then you didn't have to do the credit. So they seemed like it was the opposite there but maybe I have that wrong.

Yeah. For Chaffy County if you're going prescriptive and I know that because I helped them with it. So Oh, okay. Yeah. So they you still have to do the credits but where it differs is in the 24 you have to get the 10 credits or the 15 credits depending on the size of home. And for Chaffi County, uh, under the 21, you just have to pick one item. And if you have like all your duct work in the thermal envelope, then that takes care of that credit. That's the one I checked. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Because most of us are doing that anyway, so why not use it? And so was that did they amend anything or is that just straight from the 2021 on how that reads? Okay.

Yeah, it's it's straight. there is very very little that is allowed to be amended per what the state statute uh states right okay makes sense I just had a um quick question Ethan I think that you had mentioned that you were going to um talk to some contractors or board review from Summit County um that just went through their process. I was wondering if you gained any information that you'd like to share.

I did in fact and unfortunately um at the time my daughter was sick and I was watching her and so our meeting got cut a little short and I wasn't able to reschedule so I didn't really get very far. Um he kind of just reiterated things that Hope just said um uh and again said that 24 is typically cheaper than 21. um which we already saw through the the NHB or NAHHB um packet. Uh he mentioned that there's some structural requirements that also lend itself to the 24 being cheaper, which was news to me. Um I didn't dig any deeper on that in particular. Um but yeah, so excuse me. Overall, not super enlightening um because of extenduating circumstances. And I I did want to just mention too um that I don't know who all um knows Richie. He's here from C4 who is our consultant for our um implementation of our climate action plan. Um but he works closely with CPD staff on um different energy initiatives and opportunities for Lake County. So I just wanted to also I think I didn't know Richie if you had anything that you wanted to share. Um but but he is certainly a resource for staff. So I just wanted to thank him for being here and give him an opportunity to to share anything that he might like to put into the conversation.

I appreciate the opportunity uh to talk. Um I don't really have anything to add on top of what I was already said. Um, I I I really didn't sort of do it myself and um, not being a builder, I don't think I can, you know, throw throw anything out there. I did wonder um this is just a small thing but uh one of the requirements was you you could uh I mean there's there's so many things uh but you mentioned that one of Hope you mentioned that you could uh get get points from an ERV um so that's that's required anyway though right in so so generally are there going to be things in those additional efficiency measures that are required anyway and if they're required anyway do they are they still available for additional points

actually while you are correct an ERV is or HRV is required for uh for um Lake County with the the climate zone that it's in what happens with that is it's the amount of enthropy recovery that is required. It's uh I believe 65 for just straight out of the base of the code and then if you are doing it as in addition to the uh uh additional efficiency credits instead of having the 65 then you have to go up to 75 for your sensible and for prey recovery.

Okay. So it does build on that. I will say they were very good about ensuring that if it's something in the base of the code, you don't just get credit for it with the additional efficiencies. It might be in, you know, in conjunction with it, but you'll go beyond what the quote unquote base is requiring. Okay. I'm sure we can find a million other things like that, but

I don't need to ask anymore. Yeah, like Hope mentioned, there's definitely some that are kind of like freebies like like like having all your duct work and it it goes for a boiler, too. So, all your duct work or all your piping in the condition space is one of the the additional credits. So, some of them are pretty easy to obtain. just checking a box and then making sure that um and then did you want me to go over the commercial side because that one is more complex than residentially. Yes, please. If you would.

Okay. So, for the 24 commercially, there's actually two different categories of additional efficiency credits that you must obtain. one is from the uh energy efficiency category. The second one is the renewable energy and load management um category. So, um I I can't give you specific numbers because that ends up being based on the occupancy of the building. Um along with a couple of other of uh variables, uh size, occupancy, where it's being located, all that fun stuff. Um, but again, there are a whole lot of options as far as how you can obtain those points. But I will let you know, I mean, it is somewhat shocking because when you go into the table, there are certain occupancies that have a requirement to have over a 100red credits um that have to be obtained through one category and then uh another set out of the other category. So just be aware that it is that. But there's also uh variables that do come into it. Most of them have equations. So you start off with maybe you get 10 points, but once you do the equation from what you're planning on doing it, then states, oh, okay, so now we're okay because we've done this and instead of the 10 points that you started off with, maybe you're getting 32 points just because it takes into account of the amount of above and beyond that you're doing. I hope that kind of makes sense. It's not straightforward in any way, shape, or form. And I'll be quite honest, I do a 4-hour class on just the commercial

additional requirements in the 24, and it's still probably not enough. So, that wasn't to scare anyone. That's just to make sure everybody understands it's when you start getting into it, you're like, "Oh my gosh, I'm going in circles." And you are, but eventually the the turnoffs get apparent and you're like, "Oh, yeah. I can go left here." Great. Are you going to be offering some classes for us or make a schedule available for us so we can get familiar with 2024?

Yes. Um, one, we've been doing uh classes on 24 virtually. uh a lot of like one-hour sessions uh to to help facilitate understanding that. But as always, you know, you guys are on my list. You just have to let me know that that's what you would like and I will let make sure Troy and Andre get those scheduled for you. Okay. And so with these additional efficiency credits, these would need to be identified right from the get-go, right? Absolutely. Absolutely.

Okay. And then do you see any difficulty with John Inspector upholding that throughout the process or

No, because Part of it is that uh one of our amendments, no matter what addition of the code we decide to do, will be declaring on the construction plans what additional efficiency credits you're going to obtain. That way, everybody who touches the project, you know, from whenever the designer does it knows that, oh, okay, so I I need to make sure that all my duct work is in. need to make sure that the uh equipment that I'm going to use is you know the efficiency that you know we're trying to get the points for. So that is something that we will definitely get incorporated into the ordinance. All the jurisdictions forever in a day that I work with all have that added to their ordinances.

Uh one more question regarding performance pathway. Um is there a list of um software that is acceptable to use for that?

Um there there isn't one listed in the code. Now I will say um I do have a list typically what I see in Colorado again is remade and ecatro just because those are the two that uh a lot of the raiders um are familiar and utilize here in Colorado and in else places too. Um but the code does have um some criteria now listed in there um as far as ensuring that the software meets uh the criteria that that's being asked. It's been in the code for the last couple of cycles, but they did beef it up a bit. Uh understanding that, you know, there's new tools that are kind of coming out. So they're just making sure that the software meets the appropriate standard that you know remade and ecatro have developed to. So there there are some standards out there that they have to abide with.

Gotcha. Thanks. Those um that list of um requirements is that in the code did you say? Yes, it it has the the uh list of standards that they have to follow. not what the the specifics of that standard are, but does list the standards. Nice. And do you recall off the top of your head where that is?

Uh, it's in a 405.5 actually 405.5 hand is the calculation software tools. That's what it has to meet or all the criteria in that section. Thank you. Yep. And hope, can I just capture that? That that's rim rate or equatope. Yes, I'll put it in the chat for you. Awesome. Thank you. Oh, no, I won't. I lied it. It won't let me put it in the chat.

Oh, just a minute. Let me Sorry about that. Um I'll send an email. Okay, thank you. Yeah, no problem. Forget the chat.

Okay, any other questions for Hope right now? One thing that I noticed, I might have mentioned this already, but I do think it helps the 2024 and 21 give a little more clarification on um air leakage testing in relation to garages and and what should be tested and what shouldn't. So, I I appreciate that.

Yeah, those were never meant to be included in the testing. Um, it actually calls that out in the standard. So, at least now it's clear as mud for everybody. Yeah.

Hi. Um, this is John. I did want to mention something that came up before about U values for windows and hope maybe you can clarify this. When we're at the higher elevation here, I think it's still the U factor of.3 is still allowed. don't having to drop to the 2.7 or 27. Um Ethan, you were talking about that in one of our last meetings.

That's still an exception in the table in the 24. Yeah. Yeah. I was just going to ask you where you're over 4,000 ft. You can do that exception still and use a U.3 window instead of having to drop to the prescriptive 27s. Correct. But that doesn't apply when you're using res check or or performance because then you have to or I mean maybe you could but but everything has to go through that that pathway if you're going a different if you're not prescriptive. Correct. Yeah.

Well, actually no. Res does capture it because it's it's out of the U factor table and that's how the one that rescheck is built off of. So it does take that into account in the back side of the all of the calculations in it because you put in what uh where the location is. So it knows what the elevation you'll notice on the the uh form it says you know what the elevation in and that's part of it. then it knows that it captures that you can utilize the um uh uh footnote in it because that is part of the code. Okay.

Because in risk check you essentially build your walls and then it gives you Yeah. You're this energy efficient walls and ceiling and everything, right? Yeah. Okay. And unless you guys have more for hope, I have some other stuff probably directed more at Cole, but I don't have anything. Thank you.

Okay. Um, so one thing we're jumping right to the back of the code book in the 2024 goal is I saw and and there might have been this all along, but there's an appendix BO for existing buildings because I feel like that's been a hole. We have the the international existing building code for commercial stuff, but it really didn't apply to residential and it seems like that appendix addresses stuff that we run into a lot. um when you're doing repairs, remodels, that kind of thing. Has that always been in there and I just didn't know about it? Um can you tell us about that?

No, it hasn't always been in there. And you just identified a big gaping hole that us code officials are starting to fill. Um and so what it comes down to is the appendix chapters are essentially code sections that are not ready for big time yet. They're not ready to be put right into the code book. Um, and so it's getting there. Um, but up until this point, um, the IRC has very little that covers existing buildings and just kind of says that, hey, you have to comply with, um, the addition if you're adding an addition or that kind of stuff. And a lot of building officials just kind of default into the IEC anyway and use the provisions of that to say, okay, you're doing X, Y, or Z. This falls under this category. But we don't really put it into leveling like you know the IEBC goes into level one two three or performance compliance. It's more it's your house if you're not touching it you're just doing the addition then it comes in under the new code. But if you are remodeling it what you put in essentially it comes up to regular code unless um under the energy code then you go under um the provisions of the existing buildings and the energy code which are under chapter 5 for residential.

Okay. So, do I recommend it? Sure. Do I not recommend it? Sure. I mean, the appendix chapters are at will. Um, I have been in jurisdictions where they take it and where they don't, where they say, you know what, we're just use the provisions of the IRC and wait until it becomes prime time and then go from there. But if you feel like it is something that you want to do, we can definitely incorporate that um that uh appendix into it. And it's just part of the adoption process. we say and appendix B in from the IRC and that kind of stuff, right? It does give a better guideline. I'll just say that. But

yeah, this is John. Um my understanding that we've been able to use the international existing building code for residential structures too. They're just a R3 use. And so that's how it's been applied in the past for a single family home that needs to go under repair. Mud sills and all kinds of different things can be placed in there. And the, you know, the basic premises, we just don't make it worse. And there's definitely restrictions and all of that, but the IEBC has been used for residential buildings.

Yeah. I And I I've applied that myself. I think my my little bit of looking at that appendix in the IRC is that it would simplify it just a little bit for designers, contractors where we can on a residential keep it all in that IRC and not not dive into everything in the IEC. So I'd probably be in favor of adopting that appendix, but we can discuss that more, I think. And there's a few other appendices that I think would be worth talking about. Um there's some good stuff some something about ADUs which we want to make sure they align with the county I mean the zoning side of things but um those are certainly a big thing. So

yeah they've done a lot of work on those ADU um appendices and a lot of the code language that has come back come into the actual 2024 code. So yeah. Yeah. One thing I noticed for example in the I think it's from the existing building appendix is that there's an allowance for stair rise and run that doesn't comply you know up to a certain degree where like we have that amendment in our code and you know maybe we want to keep that but this this gives you another alternative that is all within the code without amending it so that when you run into these buildings that you can't really get rise and run to work. You can there's some options there. So,

correct. And that's pulling that's pulling straight from the provisions of the IEBC where the existing rise and run can m can be maintained because you don't want to rip a whole stair out if you don't have to if you don't if it isn't going to if you're not going to do complete structural upgrades, especially in historical buildings. So, right. I guess in keeping with the um uh looking at the appendices, Cole, are there any changes at all or significant changes um to the radar mitigation section?

Uh not anything major. Um they pretty much kept that the same across the board. Uh, let me pull that up real quick just to see if there are a few I can highlight for you. So that you're referring to appendix be correct. Correct.

All right. Yeah, they didn't do they renumbered it because they reumbered all the appendices in the 24. Um, but they had didn't make any major changes within that section. In fact, that's pretty much all they did is just renumbered it. So, it stays the same from the 21 to the 24. Okay. Thanks. So, Cole, I did find a a great uh YouTube video that you did for it was like a Las Vegas AR AIA convention or something. So, I can't say I watched the whole thing, but it was definitely helpful for for significant changes.

Thank you for that. If anybody wants a good two-hour lesson, it's out there. I didn't know that was out there. Yeah, you're famous. You getting royalties? No, never.

This is John. Um, one of the big classes at the uh, last ed institute last week was about tiny houses. And I don't know if town and county want to talk about city and county want to talk about those, especially with the city of Leadville's ability to add a second dwelling unit to any city lot right now. But those tiny homes are going to be state reviewed and uh working at how to figure out how to get these things into our communities safely and easily. But it's a a rising topic for sure in the construction industry out there. Not just modulars, but tiny homes.

Um so they're not allowed in the county because our minimum square footage is 600 ft. So, um they currently there's a conflict of zoning about in the county. Um the city has I I do think um they are possible under the zoning in the city. So, as we do this adoption for both the city and the county, um we can absolutely I'd love to, um I'm going to put this on kind of my my to-dos here to ask Chie about um you know, from a zoning standpoint where they are with county homes and see if there would be a benefit in um that appendix.

Yeah, it's my understanding they're approved in the city. So yeah, he maybe may feel like that would be a benefit to be able to have that appendix for for the city's portion. Um, and it may be, you know, we can kind of think through um, you know, we put a pen in a little bit if communitywise it could become it could be an appendix that we adapt with the the thought that zoning may look a little bit different in the future. So we're we're in the midst of an implementation plan coming out of our comp plan

and as we are sitting in a housing crisis um I think that we are looking at whatever kind of housing types might get people housed. So are they defined as homes on wheels or homes on foundations or both?

There's many different types of tiny homes and tiny houses. There's definitions with permanent chassis. um on a sightuilt foundation or on a wheel that you could move away. And so there's just a multitude of options for these um appendix BB tiny homes. The other talk was that if it's good enough for a tiny home, why isn't good enough for a house? Because people are living in both. And so the longer term for the ICC um code adoptions is to try to possibly incorporate some of the tiny home provisions into our regular houses. So I think it's a good idea to just be aware of it for sure and then just decide what's pertinent today and maybe what's pertinent looking forward. you know, the trend that we're seeing in the county of kind of the tiny home um interest is really in commercial use around glamping um and wanting to create um we've got a lot of people that are coming in um wanting to look at a possibility of putting in a glamping campground and they want to be able to use the titan um RV type model with the with a chassis um and not a permanent foundation. So um it's possible that you know this would be beneficial for those types of use. So um but that is a trend that we're seeing and we're in a moratorum right now really diving into the different types of rural lodging options that we have anything from campgrounds and IV parks to group camps and private resorts. And so one of the things that we've really identified is that those temporary lodging looks a little different. We've got dome structures now. We've got the tiny home structure for glamping. We've got a lot of different um temporary lodging types, too. Um so there could potentially um be value in the appendix for county use as well.

Yeah. But that's that's kind of where we're seeing the interest more over like longterm occupies. It's more of a temporary occupancy that we've been seeing an interest in in the county. Yeah. Well, that's interesting. Could you build one on a slab? On a just a 5 inch slab? I mean, if it if you could do one on wheels, why can't you do one on a thickened slab or something? I mean, is that what you're talking about, John? Is if it's good enough for a tiny home? Well, sure. I'm taking this down a weird path here, but

the short answer was yes. There was talk about permanent frost protected foundations, shallow protected foundations, um or things that are more on a our a mobile home kind of site where they're not frost protected and they have a flexible service and sewer and electrical gas water connections so that they can float on the frost. But yeah, those are all the different there's like four different types of tiny homes and ways to put them on your site. Okay. Yeah, I'll have to read up on that. Sounds like be beneficial though.

I had one question. Uh, and this is more for an um you'd mentioned in a previous meeting that uh the 24 was more aligned with um zoning requirements for ADUs. Could you expand on that or refresh my memory what you said? Um I think we were just talking about the ADU. Um I it was an example Cole where you brought in in the 24 we recognize um ADUs more aligned with how we define them in in zoning code. So before we had to have you know we had to kind of look at it as like a duplex. um and and but that isn't necessarily doesn't translate to zoning code. So, he had like I had a um a home out in Panarch that got a conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit, but then when it came to constructing it, um you know, he had a lot of different challenges because the zoning code, how we categorized it under the zoning, what was allowable um through the IRC code of the 18 um you know, he had to do maybe John, you can help me remember. I'm sure you you recall the project that I'm thinking about, but he had to increase the fire separation. Um, it seemed like we had some other egress requirements as well. So, do you recall which one I'm talking about?

Not quite exactly. Um, so, so it just recognizing the code, the 24 code, recognizing this and creating a pathway for an accessory dwelling unit that, you know, we kind in the zoning world we look at as more of a duplex um, just further aligns better um, with the way that we categorize an ADU,

right? the zoning words and the building code words are a little different. And we've cut that a couple times on some city properties of is this a two family dwelling with a 1-hour wall between them. It's not independent construction like town homes require, but the appendix for the ADUs is really nice for that. You can have that additional dwelling unit and the basic requirement is having smoke and seal alarms that sound on both sides and they're even wireless these days. So

in um Panark or he had did he wasn't he going to have to have two separate utility rooms for I'm trying to remember exactly and and I talked to Steve about the ADU um and just the design of that. I know you worked at that too. We have like three lots out there at the end of the road with really weird access really steep access. He made it where the the utility room had to be accessible from like both spots. It had to like lock off like able to lock it off from both units. Yeah. Yeah. There was I just remember that as we got

be allowed in duplexes, but now I think with the 2024 there are accommodations for that. Right. So, it just would because I remember even I even had to talk to Steve about it because I'm like, "Okay, wait a minute." Like where, you know, I know that we have this gap between planner speak, zoning speak, and and building. And so, you know, trying to kind of figure out and I just remembered that there were, you know, a lot of hiccups in that build that the new the way the code is the 24 will be more conducive to what we think of as as an ADU and what the infrastructure needs are and the fire separation and different different aspects of it are are more congruent and easier. It's easier to manage. Yeah.

Gotcha. So, will they still require a cup to build?

So, we're working on right now um making that we're trying to get rid of that um to have to require a conditional use permit for an ADU. That's one of the code amendments that is on our priority list for 2026. Um because yeah, it certainly doesn't it it's really an unnecessary ownorous process. It should just be a use by right. So, we're working on changing that. It is a use by right on parcels over an acre, but it requires a conditional use permit on anything that's under an acre, but it's it's really unnecessary. And I know Matt had to go through one of those for a for a client, and he probably would echo that it was a lot of additional work that um seemed like a rubber stamp um approval. So, we're making those administrative. So,

and how this is getting off topic a little bit. Yeah, sorry. Do is is the water augmentation plan is that meant to address some of the issues too on the water side of things?

So, the priorities under the under the water augmentation would be for residential use. Um, so in areas that it would require an augmentation plan in order to subdivide property or add an ADU or or have a two um or more dwelling unit um then or two or more dwelling units. Um you could petition to come under the out plan and that service area um that probably be I mean yeah it is kind of a sidebar but I'm happy to send out the service area maps on that so you know where that is. I think I saw that actually layer on that. Yeah. Is on the

GIF. Yeah. And so happy to send out just for kind of you know information. Um but that is exciting. It it will change um development and different areas that were constrained by inhouse.

Yeah. Good. Well, we were in the appendices on the 24, which are more robust. That appendix BM is for 3D printed building construction. Just something to be aware of too for the county and jurisdiction because it's down in Chaffy right now. They're 3D printing houses down there and right in town. So, something to be aware of. We haven't seen one yet, but I'm sure they're coming soon. Anything else for coal on anything non- energy? Didn't seem like there were as many huge changes on on the rest of it. Anyway, so I think we're in good shape. Um, I think we're at a point where we just need to discuss and and probably figure out the the route we want to go on the code then. Anybody got a coin?

I think we were all liking the 24. I've already said my piece. I think we just go right to 24. Yeah, I'm I'm on board with that, too. I think there's enough good about it that makes sense and some things I'm not thrilled about, but overall it seems like a good path. Yeah, I agree with all the sentiments. Great. Carlos, do you have any thoughts one way or the other? No. Yeah. Um All right. Um should we make a motion to go down that pathway or is it just guidance guidance at this point?

Just I I think just seeking guidance um tonight so we can start working with that um to start doing some draft documents for your review. We do have about 15 minutes late or 15 minutes left and um I wanted to ask a couple things. If you'd like to review, I've got the resolution ready to like ceue up and share the existing resolution. I don't know if any of you spend any time with it. if there's any areas of the resolution you wanted to discuss or if or if you feel like you know Cole has it and if there's anything in there that you want to talk about tonight changing you want it to look a little different or could we work from our previous resolution and you know kind of use that as our guide and creating a draft document for the 24 is There is there anything in the existing resolution and I can pull it up if you'd like.

Yeah, I think we should probably pull that up and that'd be a good way to use the rest of this. Um I I my feeling is that the code hasn't changed so drastically that you know a lot of that stuff wouldn't still apply or not depending on how we want to deal with it. So I don't think we're wasting time to look at it right now knowing that it's going to have to get renumbered primarily. Well, that's that's the biggest change from the 21 to 24 is they revamped all of chapter 3

in the IRC anyway. And then also did the appendices. So doing those kind of things. It's just making sure that the code references are correct and then we're good to go from there. Yeah. Okay. Can everybody see that? Okay.

Eye, can you see that? Okay. Yes, I can.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to minimize everyone for just a minute as we kind of go through it. Um, you know, so roles and responsibilities. Um, you know, this is all going to stay largely the same. Um, and then we'd just be looking at the adoption of the codes, changing that to the 24. Um, and you might want to just spend a little bit of time, I think, you know, we've got the existing building code in here. Um, the, you know, change of the 24 energy code. Um, and that just talks about appeals. Um, and then we get into the amendments. So, it starts, you know, it's designed to start with the IBC first. And this just goes over the excuse me the scope and administration chapters first. Um so this is basically just our um housekeeping section of we have not I will say we have not adopted the property maintenance code. S is something that keep comes up in code enforcement and I would just say that we really don't have the capacity to administer the property maintenance code um as far as um the oversight of rental properties in Lake County. So I would love to that's one thing that stands out to me in that part. I would say I'd love to to delete the property maintenance part of this just because of our lack of capacity. Um this is all you know just basically it it will this will just keep um operations within the department the

same that they've always been basically. you know, we won't be making any changes to process, how we issue permits, how we renew permits, um the items that are exempt from um a building permit. We did do a few changes to this last time um because we did the sighting, replacement of exterior sighting that's less than 200 feet. I should have done the one where I highlighted the changes that we made in our last adoption. Um drywall has always been 200 an insulation. So, that'll stay, but we did um add the um sighting of less than 200 feet west, right?

There's a little bit in the wildfire code about exterior replacements too, straight up in the CWRC for amounts that require permits possibly. So, yeah, I was just trying to look that up. That I thought I thought it'd be around 500, but they could be wrong. And those are in addition to the stuff that's already in the code because there is work exempt from a permit correct in each of the codes. These are in addition to right all those things that are listed. So structures um you know sheds under 200 ft that are single story and you know things like that are already there.

Yeah. Um so this is something that we worked on last time was the responsibility for preparation of plans and specifications. Um so this was just allowing us to get um professional um design plans in certain instances. So in all buildings classified under those occupancy groups as well as um in the judgment of the building official that are substantially or submitted which are severely lacking information showing compliance the code. So you know we allow people to come in and prepare their own plans as long as they substantially have all the information that we need. But sometimes we get less so than we used to when we made this. Again, there's certainly been a big shift in the quality of the plans that we receive, but it allowed us the it allowed me the flexibility to say, you know, we we we've attempted to look at your design and we really need you to get a professional assistance in designing this. And we've set that level of a at a um professional drafts person. So, we didn't say it had to be an architecture engineer, but we set the bar at um a professional drafts person. So maybe you all recall that.

Um so I would just say that it would be really nice to continue to have the ability to um ask for specifications and plans that are professionally prepared in certain instances and that this has served us well. Um but it has already, you know, we're already seeing that um increase in in the the quality of plans. The only thing I'd say about that is maybe we should do something just so we're aligned with the state because state law requires an architect to be involved for anything over 10 occupants I think. Yeah. And I think registered design professional doing these class these um occupancy groups.

Yeah. So, I think that's our our one, two, and four. I think we've hit into some of those. Yeah. I just I'd hate to see somebody

on the IBC specifically, IRC is a different ballgame, but somebody read that and interpret that they wouldn't need an architect when when the state law requires it, even if this shows like it might not need it. So, I would love this is where I have the amazing help of Cole that I'm hoping will help us just look for, you know, just like you're looking for um the hardening requirement um under the Colorado resiliency code on the 200 ft for the sighting. Also, like make sure that we don't have anything in here that is um in conflict with state requirements. I'm so sorry. Did the audio go out?

Oh, can you not hear us? Oh, now I can hear you. Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Sorry. No, no. I was just asking Cole if um we were just pointing out um Luke was pointing out that we want to make sure that we don't have a discrepancy or a conflict between state requirements as far as professionally um designed plans for the under the IBC for certain occupancy groups. And so I had said that perhaps you'll be able to look through this and just make sure that we don't have any conflicts anywhere either here or with the wildfire resiliency code.

Certainly. Certainly. And I think the audio did taper off right there at the end. I hope because I was listening and I didn't hear a question in there. So I think it is what but all good. No, we can certainly help with that. And usually when it comes to design professionals, the state overrules whatever the municipality has when it comes to that kind of stuff. But yeah, we'll make sure it aligns. It's It's better to have it align. Beautiful. That sounds great.

Thanks. Um uh information on construction documents, phased approvals, um temporary power, um scheduled permit fees. You know, this is all work or convincing prior to permit issuance. And I assume if there's issues with some of this stuff, you would raise that if if it hasn't been working for the last few years, it'll get us input. And so,

absolutely. you know, and and I think that we did a lot of that cleanup in the last our last adoption. We really brought forward a lot of those things and like, hey, we're we're, you know, having difficulties around AB and C. Um, one of it was the quality of plans. Um, which we've addressed and you'll see the same argument in the IRC too, right?

Um, refunds stayed the same. um reinspections. We did kind of um add some language around that about additional inspections. Um and there it's still a May. So when we have self builds, I'll just let you know when we do self builds. Sometimes um John's amazing. He does a lot of um guidance on site, but sometimes we we really use discretion about additional use for the inspections. Yeah. Particular south builds. um temporary occupancy. Um we just changed that to 60 days. Um but we also allowed um the discretion of the building official to extend that. So this was really important under co right when we were waiting for materials and things like that. So um we just made it more discretionary.

Yeah. Um, you still serve as the board of appeals for decisions rendered by the building official or the plan reviewer or the building inspector. Um, general building heights and areas addressification has been the same last time and this time fire protection system. Question on the address identification. Is there a reason it's 5 in? It's odd. We have quite a few issues with trying to get that number to five inches. Sometimes they just don't have them. Certainly keep it, but it just seems an extra thing that maybe could be eliminated.

I haven't ever had anybody actually approach me saying they couldn't get the letters. So news to me and I think it's more about visibility with snow. And I know it's a hard year for us to be talking about that. It was more visible. Yeah, I I'd be open to straightening that out, but there's also stuff in the wildfire code about that, too. So there is more there is language in the in the wildfire code about addressing. So we just want to make sure that we don't have a conflict. So again, we'll be asking for Cole's assistance on that. Yeah, I would probably

and also in the county um I think so I remember it also being for it being a request from um now that we bring that up from fire that it it's it's more recognizable if the address is like I mean I know it's an inch bigger but still for for fire protection and location% it was a desire to make it more um recognizable. That's correct. Yes. the opening stand. Um, and do you have a thought on that, Dan? You and reminded is that

Yes, that's that's why it was a request for that specific thing because out in the county, not so much in the city, but out in the county, it's very difficult to see home, especially if they're or you know, a lot of people they don't do the contrast, which they're supposed to do. You know, might start initially, but then it gets wood on wood or something like that. I think it was just a way for us to try to see that was better. Yeah, sure. Good job. Great. Okay.

Um, so this just calls for all fire inspection systems required by the chapter shall be inspected and approved by a a special inspector. Um, the inspector shall be an employee of the fire department having jurisdiction or another qualified individual with prior approval by the building official. Um, so I would say in light of kind of what's going on that that still seems to really probably be supportive of your future plans for right now. Yes, I think so. Okay, great. So, in the past that was Steve Bole. If Bole isn't being replaced, who fills that role?

Um, so I think it It is the um whoever Dan determines to appoint, but you can give you the floor. I can do a quick overview of that real quick. So, we're hiring a parttime inspector be able to take care of Can you can you speak a little bit closer to the speaker, Dan? Sorry.

So, we're going to hire a part-time inspector. Um not certified currently yet. going to go through some training to take care of existing and residential and I worked with Barbara for requirement sheet for residential for new um and then all commercial and everything will go through and new stuff that we need inspector sprinkler systems fire alarms all that shs go a third party uh so we're in a contract with them and then we're going to hire a deputy administration in order to be able to kind of uh facilitate all of that and work through um all of the administrative portion of that. I've spoken with an to possibly work with John and who was the other

and Don and Don for some of those uh things that we that we may need. And then the last portion of that is inspections. And a part of that admin position is to free up the engine company of 26 programs that they manage so that they can start getting out in the field to do safety inspections. And that's twofold because then they get to know our buildings as well and fine-tune a lot of the things that fall through the cracks. So it's going to be it's kind of a restructure, but uh we're going to see how it goes. Got it. Is that a long range plan or long-term solution or or shortterm?

It's long range right now. It's long term. um as we grow more um we may have to address it a different way but I think that try and minimize this for just so I can see that a little better and hide these so um chapter 13 so that covers chapter 9 13 there was just um inserting the date 18 international I can let you kind of scroll through that I feel like I don't need to read these to you one by one

high level I can give you a minute to do that on the snow loads is are we sticking with what we have on that I know it's getting more advanced now there's better mapping out there I think for for snow loads. Um so talk about that to you guys would you yeah if you want to um discuss that um we have used the same snow chart for a very long time based on elevation and pitch. Oh will the 2025 require some loading capabilities for solar panels? Um yeah that would be a factor. That's a that's a top cord dead load of

of 15 probably instead of 10 only. So it's a non-issue for the most part. It's different number in the trust design. What we're seeing Can you say that again, John? Um it's just a different number on the top cord dead load on the trust um trust detail pages and it's probably a non-issue other than just changing the number to get ready for five pounds or three pounds per square foot of solar panel. Okay. Okay. Yeah. In my experience, it's very minimal. And they only usually come in about 3 PSF, so they're very small. Okay.

We just had a tool um in our IBC changes class. It's the ascehazard tool.org. Actually, it's ascehazard tool.org. And for any address, you can put in um things for snow, for seismic, for wind, for rain, even a tsunami. And um it spits out a number. And that might not be a bad idea to also include in that snow load, the reduced pitch snow load chart. We've had a few engineers pitch a 50-year plan before. So, um, it's just a little bit different of a world out there in the engineering for snow loads up there. And it might be advantageous to not make it, I don't know, make it accurate, but not super prohibitive like our table might lead people to be, you know, having to make a much bigger truss that's maybe not completely required. And yeah, being every 100 feet or so, you know, if you're a foot over 9,000 and you're bumped up to 91, I mean, that if we could get it dialed a little bit better, I think that might be better. And just

I do think safer all the way around. We also um I know John, you've done some of our plan removal. I know Mark does the majority, but I do think that if you came in using that tool to design the snow load, I I don't think that we would Not allowed. Cool. I can talk to an engineer I use as well and just see if he has any input on this kind of thing. Um, see if he sees an issue with what we've been doing or

I I think that if you if you brought something in like you said that that that bases it on the exact elevation and and we we would recognize the same tool that John's saying. So we can we could incorporate something like that into Yeah. Um but I would already say that I I doubt that we would kick something back um if it was design. Yeah. Yeah. Just maybe on this line under snow loads we could add some language if we want to keep that we can and maybe add language thing or another approved.

See if I can. Okay. I'm just going to make Okay. So, snow loads possibly are a section that you think we could expand to add other design methods in order to arrive at acceptable snows. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. That is the end of the IBC amendments that we currently have. Are we ready? Yeah.

Go on. Okay.

All right. So, we're right back here at basic information, you know, just the name of jurisdiction scope. Um and this is just how we deal with um uh how you know in between adoption um when when will when what projects will be allowed to go in under to be continue on under the 18 code and and when they'll be required to to be under the 24 code. So we'll just update that. Um, and here's that conflicting standards when the state law or regulation imposes higher standards that are required by his put than the state law prevails. So, just kind of what you were saying that we do have a kind of a catch all about conflicting standards

and I'm assuming that was above in the IBC amendments, right? I just didn't catch it up there, but we can make sure that it is.

Yes, but I think we did. So um uh so we just deleted again the international property maintenance code from access to structures uh change to apartment building because that's who we are um let's see oh this is again corrections of errors to the plans and um you know so again it's basically what we're saying too that if if we need it um more information um on design documents we can get them work that's exempt from permit.

So here's the IRC items. I'm John here on the work exempt from permit. Just from experience out there, there's quite a bit of concern in my world about replacing windows or siding and less than those things. We've had quite a few installations that haven't even been to manufacturers's installation instructions and those items are not in work exempt from permit straight up in the code and I would suggest taking 12 and 13 away for one. But I know

I know why it's there so we can encourage upgrading and all of that, but they're not getting installed correctly from what I've been observing. Yeah, I mean we've always um allowed people to change out window replacements as long as they are not um changing headers or structural members. So, I will I do wonder um I love the suggestion from from John, but I also wonder about the implementation of requiring a building per a permit for window upgrades in these instances. I I it will probably create quite a bit more work. And so I just wonder what you all think about um replacing 12 from your experience if if you had to pull a vet to replace windows. If you're not

I tend to think would have a less pot of effect just because so many people are so intimidated by pulling permits for if it's a single window. Um, so I'd be more inclined to leave it there. Maybe maybe it needs a tweak, but can I just jump in real quick here before you guys dive down this rabbit hole? um in choosing to go with the 21, chapter five of the energy code has a very extensive um

uh upgrade to their existing buildings and there is a new section in there that deals with uh when you are basically uh replacing windows and how you need to you know ensure that they are meeting the requirements. ments of uh the U factor and well only thing for you all would be the the U factor. So just keep in mind where when we adopted this for the 18 you really had the capability that you kind of had your own control of the desk of your destiny with this with the new adoption and how uh the existing buildings are working. It doesn't exactly translate that uh 12 and 13 are or I'm sorry uh specifically 12 and 14 are um allowed to be exempt in

you mentioned 21. Does that apply to 24 as well?

Uh I'm sorry. This is the 24. It does somewhat apply to the 21. there were more exemptions that were permitted out of chapter 5 and so you could have probably tied it into that and we could have maybe gotten away with the window replacement. Um but now with the 24 um basically if it gets touched um it does have to be brought up. And here's where we're walking a fine line in things is that with the new state statute, we cannot do any amendments that is going to make the code less stringent than what we would have within the base of the code. And I can say that there are communities right now that are on the quote unquote red list with the state because they did make an amendment that is considered to be weakening of the codes because they have people out there actually reviewing all of the ordinances that are being created with these adoptions. So that's just my two cents. I just want to make sure everybody is fully aware of kind of what the situation is.

So hope can you re So the window replacement and what was the other one that you said? Insulation. The insulation.

Yeah, the insulation because uh in an alteration now when you touch that uh building thermal envelope you can't reduce it from whatever it was. But there are certain areas uh kind of depending on where it is that whatever that amount that's being exposed, it has to be brought up to basically what uh if it was a a new cavity or at least filling it back up or you can demonstrate where we aren't going to get to an R30 in this 2x4 and you say okay fill the cavity type of deal. So, chapter 5, especially in the 24, um, really does hone in on increasing the energy efficiency for existing buildings.

Okay, great. Well, I don't know about great an, but unfortunately, it's what we're stuck with. I'm also kind of Yeah. thinking about the administration of we don't want to get on that naughty list. We don't want to be on the naughty list. No, you you don't. You don't.

You know, Matt brought up the um the um ask of you hope about educational opportunities. And I just think that, you know, just like we did with the last code adoption, that just needs to be part of what we're working on is an educational piece to help shepherd us into the new um requirements. So, um awesome. Okay. Not great, but great that we're we're making progress. Thank you for that. I think Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, baby. I did not want to bear this news to you all, but I I don't want us also on the red list. So, no, we do not want to be there. Okay.

Yeah. I guess in the interest of that, we probably should delete 12 and 14. Yeah, I've got those on here along the road so far. So I'll let you continue to kind of look at um this is just again these are this is the preparation of plans again um talking about that this is the previous approvals and the information construction documents. So those are all things that you've seen before that we just put in down into the um down here.

I'm so sorry to bring more bad news. I don't know if you want to call it bad news, but number 13 uh probably has to go to because it it I guess it depends on the the size of the building, but there is new requirements um when you have exterior covering and you are replacing it. Um there's some additional criteria that does kind of kick in for those existing buildings. So, I I don't know if we can still keep it since it's the 200 uh square foot and I'm happy to do some research on that, but I do want to make sure that you are aware that we may have to pull 13 also.

Hope, are you talking about the exterior insulation underneath the siding? Is that what you're referring to? You're muted. Sorry. Yes, that's part of it. But you specifically you specifically called out 13. So you're saying there's some clause in the new IECC where if you pull off cladding um then that triggers something where we need to bring it up to code for example.

Yeah, it's not exactly fully decode but there are some conditions to it. Um when you start removing the exterior cladding uh at that point you are required to do things like add the continuous insulation. Yes, if you just have a small section that you're doing or one you know side of the of the structure itself uh then it's that one side that you would have to do. So that 200 square foot, it may not seem like it's that big, but it could be an entire side of a of a building, which then does trigger that it has to meet the following criteria of it.

Okay. Um so we were just um these all follow what we just saw before the refunds uh committee who works as part to the issuance of permit reinspections um dumpsters and sanitation have to have portaotties and dumpsters and temporary occupancy. I'm sure you've all seen this at some point. what is um the following conditions have to be in place in order to be contemplated for temporary occupancy. So I would say those stay the same unless you all um and so here is our exciting table that I'm sure Hope remembers well. She helped us create it. the

so this will be one of the areas that will be um changing the ASCE hazard tool has the wind speed at 105 for Leadville but things like that we can help with make sure that this chart's correct for today's numbers Don we can just write into that that in alternate means and methods we can use ASC hazard tool and then we don't have to adjust the table. Yeah, I love that's kind of thing what we were talking about earlier is that Yeah, that we could that I think is a great idea. Yeah.

So, um yeah, I think we can all agree that we'll be asking for your help in modifying this table with us. Okay. um snow loads. We everybody got the note about, you know, looking at um expanding um other kind of like what we're talking about in in the other sizing. Oh, okay. I'll just let you look at all of these. I'm going to have to run. Oh, thanks. See you. See you next time. Are you going to adopt the um the appendix that requires you to put up with your company? Is that some kind of joke?

Tell that toward I'll see you. See you later.

I'd like to see I need to look up that R302.5.1 on opening protection. I'm just curious why we removed the 20 minute fire rated doors option.

Yeah. Oh. Oh, I see. I'm sorry. I took a minute. Remove the phrase or a 20 minute read. Yeah. So it's the or part that we didn't want to allow the exception to, right? Just

we can review that if we need to figure out why we did that. Um I I do have I have notes from last time that I can pull out to um that have right now, but I'll put that down. Okay. Hey John, can you see our screen there? R302.7 under stair protection. Were you saying the new code allows just a half inch into the stairs now? Allowed half inch. This was always What's that now? It's always half inch. Oh, can we go back to half inch?

Yeah. Yeah. I don't know why we need to make it harder personally. I mean, if the code requires half and they think it's sufficient, I'm not sure. I feel like I need to make it harder. Yeah, the code says half inch. I just checked it. I think we should strike that. I'm wondering if any of these came from recommendations from Steve. I don't know. Yeah, it's possible. I think some of them came through because of the removal of the fire sprinklers. Yes, that's exactly right. And that's where these were put in.

That's right. Yeah. I knew there was a basis of why we we if we weren't going to put in the sprinklers because if you'll remember, I don't know if you remember, but we um the fire um department went and um tried to um require the sprinkler um sprinkler systems and they chose not to do it. And so they asked for these considerations because the spaces aren't sprinkled.

Well, I don't know. Do we need to study that further? Does it really uh offer that much more protection or could it be typex in the stairways in because they weren't requiring sprinkler systems in single family homes. So, well, technically a code supposed to, but but everybody checks that one out across the board. Yeah. Why do we Why don't we That's the next one. So, fire sprinklers, the code says they shall be and we changed it to May, which is the the big one. Yeah. I mean, it kind of

that was 2012, I think, when that snuck in there. Then we're talking about a little bit of a contradiction as we are doing the fire wildfire resiliency code and we're talking about adding hardening and and defensible space. So if we don't have sprinklers removing some of these kind of additional fire mitigating factors, it's kind of like a little bit of the you know different idea

especially as we're in this incredible snow drought. Yeah. I mean, it's a pretty I don't know. It's a pretty light lift. No pun intended. Um 58 is still pretty cheap, right? Yeah, that one doesn't break my heart. I guess if it makes stairways a little safer and houses that aren't sprinkled, which is all houses. Yeah. I guess while we're talking about stairs though, um,

one thing we could potentially look at is that we have the steepest stairs in the country and like some of the fewest oxygen in the country. Yeah, that would be the the risers and treads at the bottom here, right? Mhm. Correct. I can get I can go down to the There you go. Yeah, I guess this is kind of top of mind for me right now. I was just in a in a new build and um it was kind of shocking how steep and narrow those stairs were. Um and they were totally code compliant for this document.

I don't know. Most people aren't going to build 8 in risers unless there's some kind of constraint, you know. you know, especially these ADUs and stuff, you know, to me that's the the designer and the homeowner taking that 8 in on them. I don't know. I I don't believe leaving that one alone. What do you all think about the exterior open risers provided the opening between treads does not permit the passage of 6 in diameter sphere? That works. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the main premise of that was so that people can shovel snow out. I know.

Um, you don't like it. I had somebody the other day want like 18 in or you want a 12 or something more than that? Like you that won't fly. But we'll do what we can for you. So, if you I did just have one the other day and somebody put a 6 in on the bottom of the guard and then they're using it. Yeah, I know some of this I think. We can we want to get Charlie when he's back here too cuz he was instrumental in in some of these when they originally came in. So I think he can speak to them more. Okay. Um I would be inclined to leave the 6 in rule. the six inch and

and that's yeah the only thing I'm wondering on the stairs maybe we could add language that just says like where where 7 and 12 in is not feasible the maximum shall be eight. So the default would be going to the code, but that allows in a situation where if you can prove that it's infeasible in this spot to to get that compliant, then you have a next step. Seems ownorous to me. Seems like most people aren't going to go with 8 in unless they have to. regers.

I just saw something that was to the contrary, but it it's not a huge sticking point. It was just surprising to me. Um especially with the 9in tread. It's just not a lot of space for uh grandma and grandpa. You know, that 9 in tread actually should probably be clarified that it's includes a nosing. It could never not have a nosing. So,

and if I remember correctly, the reason why that was put in last go around is because remember we didn't have anything for existing buildings. So, this was addressing the um existing building situation. Yeah. And the existing building appendix now does have some accommodations for that. Yeah, I'm I'm kind of torn. Need to think about it some more. Okay, I'm putting a pin in that one for us. If it helps any Utah amends it to that as a whole. Oh, really? The eight and nine. Yep. Well, that's even more reason to to strike it out. I don't want to be like Utah. Yeah. No.

And in all my time being a building official there, I never saw one person use it. Okay. I can see using it if you're trying to do an apartment above a garage and you had, you know, space constraints might help you eliminate one of the tread. I mean, I I'll go to seven and 58 or seven and 3/4. What? Man, I fall down the seven and 11 ones.

Yeah, me too. I mean, I'm I definitely use it here and there, but usually within like a quarter of an inch. I'm not I'm not doing eight and nines, but it does allow a little more flexibility. Um, yeah. Yeah. I hate to see it go away on the one hand, but I want to do what's right. So, think about that some more. Um, is this a good place for us to stop here at um, the opening invitations?

And, um, because I do want to go over timeline with you really quick. I just need a few minutes to go over timeline.

Um, first I want to remember where we are. Um, is thank you all for making a decision tonight about the 24. Um, which is really going to help us. Um, unfortunately, let me stop sharing this real quick. um and um and talk about you know I recognize and a I haven't apologized yet for the couple minutes that we missed missed in the noticing requirements for our last meeting but between that and and another meeting that we had to reschedu were really beyond what we had hoped for as far as timeline. So, I had done a very ambitious timeline um of hoping to be done in May. Um wanting knowing that I might potentially need to um um let me open this up really quick. I'm sorry. There was a possibility that we might have to um make sure this is the right one.

Extend.

Extend. So, I want to talk about that a little bit. This is not the right So go into let me grab the right document here really quick. Okay. Uhoh. Just a minute. I'm sorry.

Hold your hand under there. Hold your hand like this. Sorry, it's taking me just a minute to share screen. Okay. So, can everyone see that? Okay. Yes. Okay, great.

So, here's where we started on looking at our um ECC and I codes and what we were hoping to have ready. But what this means is that by um I would need to have our draft document of our final um resolution slashordinates by April 16th, which is two meetings really quick.

Um and so um I'm talk I'd like to think about a revised schedule that puts us at adoption. by June 16th. So, we're still ahead of um our April 1 deadline. Um avoiding the interview code July 1. It has to be in effect by June 30th.

Okay. So, this is June. Okay. This is June 16th. So, we are this is can cannot go beyond this deadline. But this gives you a little more time. What this means is that we'll have that draft ready um by May. Um basically um so and then we'd be looking at sorry if you can go back on the city side. It still says April 21, but is that meant to let's see March April. It's not still that Oh, yes it is. So I haven't I haven't um

Okay, that would be a modified date. It would be Let's see, March, April, it would still be the first part of May. So, we' be it would move down our need to have it ready by about two weeks um to have our draft document um ready to go. And so, our review and public engagement, we were hoping by early March to have the draft resolution and ordinance. And we are just now kind of deciding on the code so we can start creating that document. we're just going through the resolution to pull out the things that you might want to think about. So, this would be midappril we would have that. Um, and then we could do our uh April and May would be our um notice requirements and our community outreach so that we have a town hall where we present the resolution and you can answer any questions from the public about the adoption. And then um we go into the um oh uh and and we do put it on the website. We get website and we start getting the feedback um from the community.

So we're basically moving everything out a few weeks. Um we're still making it before the June 30th deadline. Um, so that I'm talking about pivoting a little bit because I do think that we can make tremendous progress now that we've we've made a decision on which code and we've started going through the resolution because we're quite a bit we've got a good start on it. Um, so we're looking to kind of pivot and um extend our kind of our timeline a little bit. still staying before our drop dead date of June 30th. And um the other item that I was thinking that now it's escaping me for just a moment. Oh, I'm sorry. And the other thing that I'd like to propose or at least get a read from you all on I'm going to stop sharing this now um so I can see everybody is um the possibility of going to a weekly meeting for the next few weeks um to try to get through the resolution by next week to identify any areas that you have concerns about. And um then hopefully after that meeting uh we would have a draft that we could start working on as far as as meeting that um beginning of kind of May time frame of having everything ready to go.

So I don't know how you all feel about meeting weekly now until we get

12 weeks 12 meetings. We need that many meetings. Um, I I would say that once we can get once we get to our draft and we're ready to go public and front-f facing, I think we can back off. But I think right now we have an urgency of getting the because once you once you I've got the document and you feel good about it and we can start pushing out public, then then you know staff's work really begins and you'll just be able to um, you know, we'll set up the town hall and you'll be able to come and field questions from the public. you'll be able to kind of roll it out, explain, you know, your decision making by it behind it, and then we'll move into the adoption process. But I do think we really need to get to that draft document.

Yeah. Be late.

I'm okay with that. I can't make a meeting next week. I'll be on a flight, but it could certainly still happen. Um, I think a lot of the heavy lifting lifting is probably going to come down on coal. And so I guess I'd love your input, Cole, on what's reasonable and and kind of what you need from us versus what what you've just got to plug away at. Um, if we're all okay, just transferring what we're doing right now, what we did previously helps me immensely because it lets me know what changes you guys want to make right away. Um, but I can pull that across and get everything updated for the 2024 code. So, we're referencing the same code sections, that kind of stuff. So, it's ready for you just to go through and say, "We don't want this anymore. We want to adjust this," which will speed up the timeline a little bit. And I can have that done next week if you want to meet next week or I can have it done in two weeks. Just depends on when you need it.

I think I mean, the sooner we can I feel comfortable enough with everything that's in there and we're not going to make huge drastic changes that we should initiate that process. Um, and then yeah, I'm perfectly fine if people want to meet next week. I just can't swing it. But and then I'd be pretty available beyond that to meet every week. Okay. Probably makes sense at least for a push and then like you say, I think we could back off, you know, as it's further along.

Yeah. Once once we have everything you and you're ready. um with and and happy with the final draft, then you know, we'll really take over the getting the town hall said and prepping things, getting the website information out, pushing everything out that we need to do. Um and getting, you know, the public hearing processes ready and things like that. So, you know, once once we have that, then then we can really get to work and and we won't have to meet every week because we'll be well, in fact, we'll probably say, "How about we convene right before your town hall or something, right? So, that we can kind of dive in a while in there where there's not much for us to talk about." So, exactly. That makes sense.

And I and and hope I see you've got some thoughts, too. I I just want to make sure that we are not setting ourselves up, you know, for issues. I know for Lake County the timeline that we have uh works because you can have it in effect, you know, the next day typically. I know a lot of cities have to wait 30 days after approval. So, is that uh uh June 16th date? That's not the final hearing. That's the date that it would go into effect. Correct.

Correct. Right. So, I'm backing up with um and I will figure out the day the final day that we need the draft, but it this you know, we went from April 7th, I think to April 21st. So, um because by then, I think it's the 21st that the city will have to introduce it and do their first publication in April to be able to make that June 16th their second reading and their actual adoption. Okay. But so the the second hearing is June 16th for the city

for the city because I uh and just to make sure I know a lot of cities that after the second hearing it doesn't go into effect for 30 days after that second hearing. That's what I'm concerned with with that June 16th date. So, I'm just making sure that for the city, we aren't putting them into a uh situation.

I will I'll bet that Chapen is usually here from the city and I I vetted the previous timeline by him for the effective date of the ordinance after the second reading. Um, and and he said that there wasn't a 30-day period, but okay. We we'll we'll make sure he's working directly with the city attorney, too. So, but great point because the last thing we want to do is not make that deadline. So, yeah. Well, sorry. I I not trying to harp on it. I just know with most communities, it's the 30 days after the second hearing, and I just want to make sure. Thank you.

Sure. Well, we'll confirm with Japan. um we had last time, but we'll confirm again because we want to make sure um if we find out that we need to keep the deadlines that we have that would just increase our need to work to meet weekly to get this over the finish line. Um but I really appreciate Cole's ability just a minute, John. Cole's ability to um I see your hand and we'll we'll call on you in just a second. Um, so, uh, I really appreciate Cole your nimleness and being able to once we know what we want for you to be able to convert it into, um, a new draft document. So, thank you so much for that. And I'm sorry, John, go ahead.

Um, just the clarity on the Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code adoption date, I believe, I believe was April 1st deadline. Yes. and and the city is doing it March 17th and we're doing it March 30th. All right. So, this is just for the I code delay. Correct. This is just the eye codes. That wildfire resiliency code is already set for public hearing and has been noticed. Great. Could you 30th trip? I haven't heard about the Colorado model electric and solar running code requirements. Hope is there a concern on those. What? Say it again, John.

There's the Colorado model electric and solar ready code and there's another energy type code that way that a cut off date is important.

Uh all of that because we're going with the 24, we still will have to adopt uh the model electric code. It didn't matter what addition or what we did, that was always going to be a requirement. So, we'll we'll have that included. I think one one task just as we kind of wrap things up is um if we could be looking at the different appendices and see what we're interested in and then probably look for some input from Cole a little more specifically on those. But um I think that's probably the biggest thing we need to look at. Most most of the rest of it's pretty cut and dry now. So

Okay, great. And that'll be topic for next week, next meeting. Okay, great. Yep. And we'll add in in the thoughts from today on the resolution. And if everybody looks at the appendices, I will um review the timeline with chapen to assure um that we will meet deadlines on the city's adoption and um we'll double check the wording on the website around the uh license or the registration requirements for general contractors. Great. And I think that's everything. Anybody had anything else that you think we missed? No. All right, I will make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second. All in favor? I I right. Meeting adjourned at 6:09. Have a good night, everybody. Thank you, guys. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Cole. Good night.