City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. I hope you can hear me. Okay. Yes. Perfect. She's okay. All right. We will go ahead and get started. It is 545. Roberta, I'm going to ask your help as people press buttons to speak. If you could call on them. Since I can't see the buttons in the room, I would appreciate it. Any questions about the update agenda? Any questions about the formal agenda? I'll just do my usual housekeeping. Who would like to read the land acknowledgment tonight? I can. That's Roberta. Thank you. And then I have item seven a is the resolution honoring honoring military students. So I have Drew Morris for that one. Seven B is the resolution recognizing the 2025 employees and teams of the year. We have a volunteer for that one. Yes, ma'am. Mayor, I will be honored to do that. Great. And then I have seven C, which is National Public Works Week. We're going to do. Who is that? Thank you. And then I have seven D which is teacher appreciation week I have Roberta for that one. Yep. All right I think that's it for resolutions. We don't have any hearings tonight. We do have one action item 14 A, which is amending the code that we're going to talk about tonight, the electric ready and solar ready code, Janet. Madam mayor resolution to offer tonight. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I was going to ask to amend the agenda to add the resolution for Nurses Week. For Nurses week. Okay, we can do that. So that'll be item 70. Can somebody email me a copy of that?

I'll I'll turn it over to. Chris. You're going to read that one? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then when I ask to if there's any changes to the agenda, then I'll call on Eucharist to make that motion to amend the agenda to add item seven, the resolution recognizing Nurses Week. Correct. Okay. And then 14 a the the code update. I can do it. All right, Roberta, I got you. And then we have a TDA meeting afterwards with one action item, which is approving the intergovernmental cooperation agreement between the TDA and the Mile High one metro district. Crystal. Read it. Crystal. Read it. Perfect. Your kind of is just not kind of melting away. Mayor. Say that again. Oh, your voice was just kind of melting away. Oh, okay. I will find a headset while we're working through this and see if I can fix that. Okay. That is it for the formal A meeting. So let's move into briefings. The 2026 state legislative update. Is coming forward, and I believe Peggy is also online. I am thank you. All right. Thank you. Good evening. Mayor. Mayor Pro Tem and members of council tonight, we're excited to present and provide the last regular state legislative update as the General Assembly adjourns tomorrow. Be mindful of your agenda will jump right in. And so we're going to start with the bills that the city

has taken positions on. There's been some changes over the last couple of weeks since we last met. So we'll have Peggy just provide some updates on some key bills. Peggy. Thank you. Yes. A few bills that we've been following this session that have wrapped up for this legislative session, at least several of them. I expect we will see again next session. We talked during several of our study sessions about the surveillance, search and seizure law enforcement bills. Those bills have all died. Senate Bill 70 was the bill that required law enforcement agencies to use surveillance technology only for lawful public safety purposes or active investigation, with specific restrictions, including warrant requirements and prohibition, and limitations on the length of time that data can be kept. The bill also limited what that information could be used for. This bill was killed on the Senate floor. Senator Mobley has said she will bring this bill back next year. And so we do expect that bill to come back next year. I'm going to spend some time with her this summer and talk with her about that bill. Senate Bill 71 was similarly a limitation on the ability of law enforcement to use surveillance technology. This bill was killed in committee. And again,

this whole theme of how technology can be used. I think we'll see these bills again next session. And then the third companion, Bill 1037, was killed over in the House as well. And this was a limitation on the ability of law enforcement to use third party information. House Bill 1308, which was a bill that mandated municipalities with populations over 1000, required them to use lot splitting and allow for lot splitting. This bill was killed in the Senate Local Government Committee, as was House Bill 1114, around maximum minimum lot sizes. I am hopeful that perhaps with a new administration and with the death of these two bills, that perhaps this is an indication that there will be a scaling back of the infringement that we've seen on local control, particularly in the housing space. So I'm sure we'll see some bills moving forward. Housing continues to be an important issue for everybody at the state and local level, but hopefully there will be more thoughtful approaches to how we work in partnership between the state and local governments on affordable housing. We also saw Senate Bill 150, which has been sent to the governor on RTD reform. As you recall, this bill changed the makeup of the board from an elected board to a combination of a nine

person board that will be both elected and appointed. The bill, as it passed, has four of those positions appointed by the governor. One from a doctor Coughlin, with the idea that maybe that will have more representation outside the Denver area. That really was a big theme as this bill worked through the legislature. There was an amendment that was put on that required geographic diversity to try to have less of a focus on Denver. There was an effort in the House, in the Senate. A ridership requirement was pulled out by Senator Mullica. There was an effort in the House to put this back in. And Senator Mullica said, if if it comes back over with that put back in, we're going to have problems getting this bill through the Senate. So they kept that out. The bill also passed with the rejection of the signature thresholds from 1000 required signatures to 250. We may see additional bills next year, but at least they finally got something passed around the reform recommendations that were passed by the Art Advisory Council. Senate Bill 156. This was the no. Kings Act came late in the session and established a state level cause of action for violations of federal constitutional rights, mirroring federal civil rights laws. The bill allowed injured parties to sue in state courts for deprivation of constitutional rights for anyone acting under color of law. And really, I think the the problem

that many legislators found with this bill was that it really included the ability to sue local government, state government, any sort of official, and that really became problematic for the legislature. This bill did not pass. It was killed. But I do expect that if this continues to be a hot issue at the federal level, that we'll probably see some variation of it. And that was kind of the update on the bills that we've been following. Great. Thanks, Peggy. Before we move on. Is there any questions on any of these bills? All right. Hearing none. We do have just one bill, one additional bill that we're going to speak to tonight. Got introduced somewhat recently here. This is House Bill 1430. Peggy, do you want to give a quick update on 1430, please? Yeah. And as you recall, this bill was introduced in response to Ballot Initiative 175. And the ballot initiative has been filed to redirect and require a focusing of funds to be dedicated for roads and bridges. The bill was introduced as a response to this ballot initiative, which looks like it's potentially going to make it onto the ballot in November. And the bill says that if there the ballot initiative passes, that there will be a time out for four years. As you can imagine, this has been a hot button issue

and a source of great frustration amongst legislators. The bill does look like it is going to pass. It was on, I believe, second reading today in the Senate, though frankly, all these days are starting to mix together. But I do think it passed second reading today. So it will wrap up tomorrow, and really has been a source of consternation for the legislature. This is just kind of as a side note, you may have also heard there was potentially going to be a natural gas bill that was introduced in response to another ballot initiative. And I think there's a bit of frustration that the legislature's response to some of these ballot initiatives, and we saw it on property tax, too, has been to introduce bills to try to put the kibosh on the ballot initiatives, which, you know, has been a successful approach. But I think it's becoming something that many at the legislature are frustrated with. So this is one that we'll get through and get signed by the governor. Thanks, Peggy. That is the list of bills that we plan to discuss. And so just open it up. There's any questions or any other bills that you'd like to discuss? All right. Looks like there's no questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next on the agenda we have the code updates. Yeah. So this for returning council members. This may be a familiar topic for new council members. This will be a new topic. So this some provisions to modify

the state are city code based on state law. This is on your agenda as an action item. Previously didn't believe that we needed to take local action to comply with this requirement, and it since learned that we do hand it over to the I think directly to Justin. Sure. Yeah, that'll work for Justin, I guess. Before we do to Justin. Justin with the city for quarter of a century. Most of you probably run into him at some point. Justin Nielsen, he's our plans examining supervisor. And then Dennis Schultz, I'll introduce. We stole him from city and County of Denver just the beginning of the year. So he's our chief building official. So I'll turn it over to Justin for the presentation. Thank you. So basically what we're trying to do here is modify by amendment the city ordinance section one, 10 or 10, 182 and ten, 183. And this is going to adopt by reference the Colorado model electric and solar ready code. We had discussed this back when we adopted the 2024 I codes with and with our nonresidential and residential team members as well. And most of all of the jurisdictions are also required to adopt this by the state statute. Basically, what this does is it. It allows design that will. Reduce the cost of future install or future retrofit. If it for example, it'll require the the roof to provide so much like 40% of free space for future install solar panels. Also, it will require electrical wiring to be brought

to gas burning appliances, and also it will require EV chargers, a certain percentage of EV chargers. Now there's four different kinds of chargers. There can be the the actual EV charger installed already, a ready charger installed, a light ready. And oh, there was one at a time. Anyway, there's there's BB capable. Yeah, that's the one. And basically that's running conduit or wiring and including space in the panel so that that doesn't have to be done in the future. Also, there were a few minor conflicts in section 1061 of the city code. And. These we found that there were a couple of conflicts from when we adopted the code to the city code that we have now. There. The accessory structure previously had been exempted from permit if it was less than 120ft², that that moved to a 20 or 200ft² fences over seven feet or under seven feet are exempted from code. So if they're over seven feet, they require a building permit instead of 30in. Also, door and window replacements are required to meet the energy code. So instead of being exempted from permit, those are now required to get a permit. I think that this cleans up cleans up the intent that we had before. It also puts us in line to adopt by the January or the July 1st deadline that the state statute requires. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from Council? I have one.

How does how does HB 26 1007 affect anything that we're changing as far as this with the plug in solar? It was passed. It was passed four days ago just for your awareness. But so Colorado now legalized plug in solar, allowing people to actually not have to have the full solar system put onto your roof. It's also known as like porch solar, where you can hook solar panels into a direct inverter, plug it into a circuit into your home, and actually recharges in that sense. I'm just curious if with us changing any of the code compliance stuff, that's going to take any kind of effect on that as well. I'm not I'm not familiar with that one. Or if we're required to adopt that by the state, this would just be B 22 1362 that that would be included in this action. We can do some research on that. Councilmember. Definitely. They interact. Thank you. My understanding is that there are requirements from the utilities for how plug in solar can be connected to the system, but other than that, there's no building code requirement. Justin, do you want to also go in number four on there? I think is important for the substantial cost differential. Sure, sure. So yeah, there are some options if the if the project has been approved, if it is or if there is substantial cost of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing portions that exceed 1% of the total cost, a waiver can be or waiver or variance can be requested and approved by the CBO to reduce the amount of installed down to that 1%, and that would like that would be approved by the CBO. What they'll do is they'll give us a cost analysis of what those items would cost, and then show us how they're going to

comply with at least the 1%. Any other questions? Appreciate it very much. All right. Before I move this to the special meeting, is there anything from Tansy or Tammy or from the rest of the council? Nothing from me. All right. I'll go ahead and move this to the special meeting. Can I get a roll call, please? Here. Councilmember. Councilmember. Algae, here. Here. Mayor Martinez here. Katherine Morris here. Russell, here. Thank you very much. And noting our rules of order. I cannot participate in the executive session, but I can to get us into the vote for the executive session. So can we please get a purpose of the or an overview of the purpose of the executive session? Yes. Today, city staff met with representatives of 470 and the Hines Group regarding issues on the development of the Park subdivision and in particular the Quebec Street overpass. And so we would like to give City Council an update in executive session with regard to those negotiations. Are there any questions? Okay. What would the motion be? The motion would be for an executive session pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 24 6402, for band to confer with the City Attorney for purposes of receiving legal advice regarding potential strategies going forward related to the ongoing development of the subdivision, and to provide instruction to negotiators regarding the same. Can I get a motion as stated? So moved. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Hearing none.

All in favor, please say yes. Yes. Any opposed? Please say no. All right. We will move to executive session. I'm going to log off. But if you would, during the formal meeting, same rules for speaking. Just hit your button. And Mayor Pro Tem will help me out with calling on council members as they have questions.