Um tonight is the study session.

Um it's about that formal to get going on a study session.

So Joel, I'll turn it over to you.

Mr.

Mayor, Mayor Proton, Town Council for the opportunity to share just this discussion this evening.

I'm the deputy building official here at the town.

Um joined here by Autlinsky, who is the um chief building official.

Uh, is uh with Shumscoda, and he'll be assisting us with any technical questions you may have.

Uh, the purpose of our study session uh is to have a discussion on code updates to the national lectures code, the international fire code, but more specifically the energy code updates.

We're also like to highlight that any uh code up adoptions that happen after June 30th of this year, um, we'll reduce our options and made it mandate us to a minimum adoption of the state's model low energy carbon code.

Um we want to make sure we get changed or July 1 if we want to make great so we lose control basically if we do nothing.

We have less control, yes.

Okay, absolutely.

Uh our goal is to provide council with clear options and gather feedback.

Uh, to be clear, staff's recommendation is one of several paths forward as it pertains to the energy code.

So, quick overview.

Uh, the building division is proposing the adoption of the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code.

Uh, other options include the state's model low energy carbon code and the metro cohorts model code as well.

We believe adopting the 2024 IECC provides the town with a practical, timely path forward, minimizing retraining of staff, does not require plan revisions from our customers, uh, no re-reviewing of plans by our staff, and at the same time, providing increased efficiency and reduced costs.

Your feedback tonight will inform our upcoming ordinance.

Um, the scope of and the intent of this update.

We're we're opting for a focused update rather than a full code overhaul.

The energy code update alliance with the town's adopted sustainability and comprehensive plans that we stay on the most recent energy codes updating on a three-year cycle.

Our goal is to reduce disruption to our staff and our building partners while still making measurable efficiency gains into the built environment.

We want to address this now in order to get ahead of the state's mandated updates, given giving the town maximum flexibility.

Our goal is to make this update prior to June 30th, 2026 deadline.

Any updates to any codes after that date triggers requirements to adopt the state's model low energy carbon code or something even more stringent, but not less stringent.

Acting now gives the town an opportunity to pursue a more flex, more flexible and locally controlled path forward.

So, our proposed update, we're recommending adopting the 2024 IECC with uh electric and solar ready provisions as mandated by the state, and our currently adopted codes include strengthening amendments to simplify enforcement and provide some electric preferred provisions.

These two would be similar to what we currently have in our code.

We also want to adopt the 2026 National Electric Code to align with state requirements, and the 2024 International Fire Code as recently adopted by Mountain View Fire Protection District.

The benefits the 2024 IECC versus the 2021 IECC improves energy efficient while at the same time reducing long-term operating costs and uh reducing building costs.

This represents a balanced step forward, meaning the town sustainability goals without introducing significant upfront cost impacts.

The alternatives.

It is an all-electric preferred leaning stretch code aimed at strength significantly higher efficiency and electrification.

Option two, the Metro Cohort Code that's been developed by the Metro Regional Energy Code Cohort, a collaboration of local jurisdictions in the Denver metro area.

The group's primary mission is to standardize building energy codes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve zero emissions for new construction by 2030.

This code goes further and is more restrictive than the state's code.

Both these codes come with added complexity, limited compliance tools, and additional staff training needs.

If I can provide a few examples of what I mean here, example number one, although both codes are built upon the 2024 IECC, they include significant amendments that substantially modify the requirements.

As building officials, we have significant access to resources put together by the International Code Council to help us with code interpretations.

Things like interpretation manuals, code commentaries, illustrated handbooks, technical support, evaluation reports, and our state chapter.

The same resources would not necessarily be available to our staff should we adopt these other codes.

Issue number three, some of the compliance tools designers use to determine compliance with the energy codes, such as rescheck and com check.

Designers have free access to these Department of Energy compliance softwares.

They determine code compliance based on the codes that are being used.

As of today, this software would not necessarily be compatible with the model oil energy carbon code or the cohorts code.

These other codes can create greater uncertainty around construction costs and implement implementation in the near term.

With newer codes being more complex by including tiered requirements for based on the size of a home, the fuel types, and on-site power production, it becomes more challenging to enforce.

Specialized staff are needed, and at this point, I don't believe that our town is ready for that for that challenge.

The graphs up here uh show you estimates for construction costs based on the 2021 versus the 2024 IECC.

These are estimates.

So and they're provided to us by the um National Home Builders Association.

So I don't have any other resource, but we're going to go with these tonight.

Uh what's highlighted here is climate zone five, which is the climate zone that town of Erie is in.

Uh, if you're building an uh all electric house using the 24s versus the 21 code, you can see a $6600 reduct reduction in cost.

And if you're doing a mixed fuel home, same thing, you'd be see you'd be able to see a $3700 reduction in building cost using the 21s for or the 24s over the 21s.

And here, same same graph, but comparing the 21 IECC versus the model low electric carbon code, climate zone five again.

If you're building all electric home, you can see an increase in cost of 12 and a mixed mixed fuel home seeing a decrease in building costs of about 1,100.

So the feedback we're requesting from council is to do we proceed with the 2024 IECC with amendments, or evaluate alternative codes such as the state model code or the metro code, or simply retain the status quo and stay on a current version of the energy code until we're ready for a complete code update to the 202027 code cycle, possibly sometime in 2028 or 2029.

Staff recommendations supports adoption prior to June 30th to maintain flexibility.

Delaying beyond this date limits options and requires a shift to at least the state's model code.

With that, we like to open things up for any questions or concerns you may have, and we'll do the best we can to answer them.

Our hope is that this feedback we receive tonight will guide us and with a clear path forward.

Maybe before we get into just the discussions, uh the HBA sent a letter.

Do you have any thoughts, opinions on their letter?

Um I read their their letter, and what they've recommended was adopting the uh 2024 IECC with no amendments.

Uh I don't think that's feasible as some of the um solar ready, electric ready, electric vehicle ready um code requirements are part of what's mandated by the state.

So we we should we have to add that to our code.

So we there will be some amendments regardless.

Um I guess that's my okay.

Best input I can give you on that on that letter.

Okay, there are requirements that we will have to adhere to that are not in this other upgrade or not upgrade but change.

So what we're proposing is the 24 IECC with amendments, and that would include the electric ready, solar ready.

These other codes that are written already have those built into it.

Right, but they're more there's even more that we know.

Well, there's there's more to it than just those requirements, but that those things are already built into those codes.

So they wouldn't have to be a we would be taking a partial step towards the new state mandate sort of uh if what we're proposing is is uh what I like to say is a good first step in that direction until we have clear guidance, like if somebody says, you know, from council we're looking for guidance, and you say we want to get to um net zero for all new construction by 2030, then this is that first step forward, and the next step would get us closer, and then by 2030, we'd be looking at doing a net zero code.

So we'd probably be looking at this adoption plus two others before we can get to something like that.

And the big ticket item, I guess, um, for full compliance with the state code, is that mostly the electricification, the full electrification of homes, or what would I um what are the cliff notes for between these?

I don't know how to compare these other than just taking your recommendation and flying with it, which is might have to do.

I'm gonna probably pass this over to Troy and he can so um in the uh energy code, there are uh baseline requirements that you have to do as a prescriptive measure.

There's also uh optional methods that you have to do to get compliance.

It's getting 10 points for a residential structure or 15 points for residential structure by upgrading your HBAC system or putting in better air barriers, things like that.

So the 24 IECC on those options has lower uh point requirements.

The MLECC, the state code, and the Metro Cohort code, the MCMC, both have much higher requirements for that, and also break it down into uh three areas.

So in that area, uh the area square footage of a house, if it's 5,000 square feet or less is 10 points.

If it's above 5,000 square feet, it's 15 points in the 24 IECC.

So in the International Energy Code.

In the MLECC, it goes to 3,500 square feet, gets you 10 points from 3,500 to 5,000, it's 15 points, and above 5,000 square feet, it's an automatic uh uh net zero.

Same with the MCMC.

So once you get into the bigger houses, they have stricter requirements for uh energy consumption and more optional requirements on that.

That's one of the things on there.

The uh bonus of the MCC or of the MCMC and the MLECC is that the IECC requires commercial projects, all new commercial buildings to have solar photovoltaic.

Both the uh MLECC and the MCMC took that out, but that is uh something if uh council wishes can be adjusted as well in an amendment.

The state of Colorado uh energy offices, that's an acceptable method.

So everyone, I just want to introduce this is Christine Brinker from Sweep, and you will have to define Sweep for me.

Southwest, sure, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.

Thanks, Sorry.

I have some family issues that came up.

Did that answer your question?

Yeah, yeah, no, it did it it did.

And so then this this July state that we're driving towards or trying to avoid, I guess.

Any change we make to our code at all after that date triggers our need of comply?

Well, sure.

So I'm gonna leave it static for the case.

Any code updates that happen after that date require us to adopt the new energy code as well.

So our target is a good idea.

So if let's say we decided to wait on the electric code updates, and our electric code updates happen on July 2nd, we will also be adopting the energy code.

Okay.

So we would be looking at no code changes for three years.

And codes update on a three-year cycle.

The town of Erie is kind of a unique place, right?

We're most of the work we do here, I'd say 80 to 90 percent of what we do here is single family residential town homes, that kind of stuff.

And we don't have a real big uh commercial project base.

So the residential code doesn't when it when they update residential code, there's not a lot of changes that really affect the building of a new home.

So by adopting every other code cycle every six years, the entire code cycle kind of prevent you know, saves us effort on our staff's part of having to re-review plans, our builders have to resubmit their plans and update them.

And most of those updates are basically taking the same house and then changing all the the code references, and so that's that's part of what so we're trying to reduce the impact on staff and our building community by adopting our or revising our codes, updating our codes on a six-year cycle rather than every three years.

And so we're just choosing these codes now to get ahead, you know, state like I said, the sustainability goals are to update every three years, the energy code, and our fire department's already updated their codes, and we're just staying in line with what they've done.

And the um national electric code is updated every three years, and the state requires jurisdictions to adopt that every time the state adopts it.

Yeah, I can need it at a level set on those dates.

So thank you, so what I think I heard you say was we you're recommend um adopting IECC 2024 with the already required state mandates that are already in place for solar ready.

And um is that what I that's correct?

Yeah, so currently our our current code, the 2021 version, we have these requirements on our code.

We've we've already amended it and we're requiring EV ready, solar ready, electric ready, as well as some um strengthening amendments that that um are kind of uh electric preferred strengthening amendments, uh and we're kind of proposing a similar path, doing the same things, adopting those same amendments and some some similar strengthening amendments that that uh are all kind of electric preferred amendments.

And then so, and then we're also adopting the 2026 uh NEC.

Um, so what were the changes between 2026 NEC and 2023?

Or were there major changes or you know that's a question I don't have an answer to?

But like I said, that's that's required by the state, and we it's kind of uh state mandated.

It's state mandated.

Whatever they adopt, we have to adopt within a year of their adoption.

So um I haven't looked at all the changes, and I I'm I've got a few guys on staff that could probably give give you more information, but um, I'm not quite as familiar.

Um, but nothing um that's gonna be a huge impact um that we can foresee these basic stuff that they do on a three-year cycle.

And then the international fire code uh additions, they're also are they also mandated, or what are the major changes there?

So our fire protection district is the is who enforces the fire code, and they have adopted the latest version of the international fire code, the 2024 version.

And so what we're taking what we're doing is taking their adoption with all of their amendments and just putting it into our municipal code, so we're mirroring mirroring what they've already what they've already adopted.

Because we don't want to be adopted, we don't want to be enforcing a code that they're not important, you know, a little conflict there.

We don't want that.

Yeah, so um basically, yeah, we asked them to approve the building plans and whatnot, and and they do it for their code.

Exactly.

We need to be in a so any commercial projects that come in, it's all you know, guided by the international fire code, and so they're reviewing to those standards, and we have to be you know, our customers need to know that that's what we're we're enforcing because that's what they're gonna be reviewing too.

So they got to know which ones to submit their plans with the information that's needed.

Yeah, thanks.

Sure.

I was curious, I can't seem to bring up the slide.

I it doesn't matter.

The slide that has the cost savings that the builders submitted.

I think that one.

How are they achieving the cost savings?

Sure, going from 21 to 24.

Okay.

So some of the cost savings are realized by what happened.

I'll give you a brief history in 2018 energy code.

Um some of the R values, prescriptive R values that were required were changed in the 2021s and increased in value.

So you went from an R49 requirement to an R60 in the attic, let's say, as an example.

And this 2024 version has gone back to those um those previous values.

So they've reduced the um the R values that are required in some in R climate zone in a couple of different areas.

So they're seeing some saving cost savings there.

And then I believe some of the compliance paths have um more flexibility than currently written.

So I think the um additional energy um requirements.

Right now we have like five options to choose from, and now there's a whole table full of options.

So you can you have more flexibility in how to get to the required points that you need to uh meet code.

Okay.

I think those are kind of the two areas we can point to easily to kind of give you an idea of where they're getting the cost savings.

Okay.

And well, do you have a sense of why they reduce that?

Did they feel it was not needed?

Like that they are rating of the I don't really have an answer to that.

I think at some point when it comes to things like that, you get a little get to that law of diminishing returns, right?

Like you can put a whole lot of insulation, but is it gonna you know give you any value?

It might give you a little bit, but you know, so you the more you put in there, the kind of the less that you you gain from get less efficiency you gain from that.

So I think they've kind of got to that point and maybe we decided to reevaluate that.

Can I add?

Of course.

Um I heard two different things, two different perspectives.

One was diminishing returns, which you can see makes sense, and the other was that some of the advocates for energy efficiency made some trade-offs in order to get other things into the code, in particular the EV ready um uh uh electrification and some of those other things that then got um appealed and then taken out.

And at that point it was too late to undo their their trade-off.

Um, but that's how the process goes.

The process was fair, right?

Um above board, but that's what happened.

Okay.

But the amendments we have in our code does require ready for EV charging and all that currently due and currently being proposed in this next anomaly.

And required by state law.

So when they moved it to appendix at the national level, that didn't really affect us here.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Other thoughts, questions?

Anyone disagree with the direction staff is heading?

Uh just question as far as what um you know, uh EV ready.

Is that just like we were they're offering additional like 220 outlets or whatever?

I mean what does that look like on a primary?

You want to think about it.

Yeah, so EV ready is basically getting things pre-wired for putting in an EV charger.

So you would have conduit and wiring your panel box would be uh size to be appropriate for the uh future installation of that.

It saves a bunch of uh remodel uh time and a lot of money because it's a whole lot easier to put it in when it's brand new than to go back in and try to install it at a later date.

So you have connection points that are terminated at the uh panel that says, hey, this is for future uh EV use only, the spot's save for that, and then out in the garage, you'd have a uh blank uh plate on the uh outlet, nothing's hooked up, but when you're ready to do it, then you can do that at a minimal cost.

And the similar theory goes to solar ready where they you know they run the conduit, they save a space on the roof where no penetrations are allowed and kind of dedicated to future uh solar panels, uh same with uh future electric appliances.

So let's say you've got a gas stove, a gas clothes dryer, a mass furnace, you have to bring wiring there capable of handling the loads for any future um appliance replacements.

So if you decide to take that gas appliance out, you have the infrastructures already in place to just plug in your new electric lines.

I have a quick question.

So I'm on the oversight committee for the powerhead colorado um initiative, which is the building decarbonization grant through Dr.

Cog.

Um and so I know that one of the things that we talk about in those meetings is the um you know, the the sub-awards to different jurisdictions, and that I think policy and codes are one of the eligible uses that you can apply for.

Is that something that the town of Erie has considered or is actively pursuing that?

Erica could speak to that.

Yeah, we too.

So you're talking about the BPC sub award.

Were you talking about additional funds?

Yeah, Paco.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So um the building policy collaborative sub-awards for jurisdictions in the Dr.

Cog region, we did apply and we were awarded.

We just signed the contract yesterday.

Um, it's a $600,000 grant between now and September of 29.

And we have earmarked those funds for actually an in-house consultant.

So working with a group like Shumscoda or similar to actually bring in an expert to help advise in these situations.

And that also includes some training, um conference budget, things like that for staff and electeds as well.

Um, so we're hoping that we'll have you know that expert really that can come in and support these conversations.

Um, because it is complicated for sure.

Yeah, okay.

So for training and training.

Training, yes.

Okay, so it's great.

Primarily it'll be for the in-house consultant.

Um staff was not comfortable with bringing on a temporary position in-house.

And so instead, um, we found a balance and a compromise with this consultant that we would bring in from another group that would really work as an eerie staff member that would be really focused on this.

And it'll be a hybrid position between our planning department and our sustainability division, so that we can really overlap in these areas.

Great.

Wonderful.

I I think this sounds like a really great uh way to kind of navigate all the new requirements.

So when we adopt new codes three years from now or six years from now, will it trigger then again the MLECC?

Correct.

No, no.

So if you adopt the uh codes right now before July 1st, then you have the grace period till 2030.

So if you adopt another set of codes till then, you're still accepted uh with the codes that you adopted till 2030.

Till 2030 at that point, then there could be a change.

Okay.

So everyone get ready.

Yeah, four years.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and like I said earlier, I you know, I see this as our first step.

If we're able to bring in a consultant to help us plan for the future and make you know, put together a plan presented to you all, and you guys let us know what you want to do, then we can start implementing it and taking those next steps to getting to wherever that goal is.

And you know, I'm assuming that a code like the uh state's code is probably gonna, you know, in our future, very you know, in our very near future.

Yeah, seems like it.

Oh, sorry, I did have yeah, so um uh just curious in an event like so, like a Marshall Fire event or something like that, so I'm just have to rebuild.

Um, I know uh Lewisville at that time they kind of grandfathered those people that had already been in there just because of the cost of rebuilding to kind of bring that down.

Is that a consideration in this, or would they have to, if their house burns down and they will build, they'd have to be this current standard.

Yeah, as it as it stands now.

I mean, if you're if your house is burned down, whatever new home you you build would have to be built to today's standard.

Okay.

So I can just speak to experience.

I mean, that was a the council actually had to come back and change a number of votes to help the for the rebuild.

They were moving down this line, and then they came back and made a bunch of changes to help reduce some costs for the interesting piece of that, and you probably know the small meredith is that 70% of folks that have rebuilt as of mid to late last year built to the 2021 international energy code or stronger.

I mean, a lot of that was because of the Excel rebates that were brought to the table as a result of the officer fire.

Sure, yeah.

Some of the other big fires, like in Sonoma County in California, they've only seen like six to seven percent of people actually doing that.

So the Marshall Fire was a really unique case study for that because they did make those exceptions, and yet 70% of people built to stronger that that level of quote are stronger, even though they had a choice.

Sure, sure.

Yeah, I'm just thinking like it's one thing when a whole bunch of uh houses burn down, but like if an individual house burns down and you've already got utility connections that are there, like that makes it very difficult for that individual house to you know make that decision where you know you have you have that sort of economy of scale if you have you know a whole area that can do that.

And can I add one other piece of context for for Lewisville?

They had an extra special and very very expensive code package in place at the time.

They're the only ones in the state.

There might be one other.

Um appendix RC and it added some $30,000 to the cost of a home.

Um and that probably wasn't a good idea to have that in the first place, but that was it was a much bigger jump.

And so just going up to the base code would have been fine and was what people were fine with, but it was that extra part that added um way too much pressure for an already horrible situation.

Sure.

Yeah, thanks.

All right, I'm not seeing any dissension to the path you're on.

Um so I'd say carry on and get it on the agenda.

I think this is scheduled for April 14th.

Okay, so it'll come back pretty quickly.

Okay, I can't.

I'd like to mention that Ed over here.

Yeah, this is his second to last day with us.

How many years have you been here?

Uh 10 and a half over 10 and a half years about work for that.

Yes, he's luckily retiring, and yeah, so I'm sitting here, but yeah, I'll be uh retiring at the end of this week.

Yeah, well, congratulations as well.

Hopefully you've got some great retirement plans and lots of plans.

Nothing for an immediate future, just maybe humble, but he's jumped uh energy code for the town dramatically in the 10 years that he's been here.

Yeah, we were under uh uh very outdated code when I started with the town of the all right, yes, yeah.

Great, thank you all.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, we'll move on to the next item, which is 2026 uh 237.

Discussion of a proposed ordinance of the county uh consolidating all provisions in the U municipal code related to penalties and enforcement of code violations and it's primarily me.

Oh, obviously it's like Sarah because she's making it out.

All right.

In December, there were two cases before the Colorado Supreme Court.

Uh, they both involved Denver and Aurora, both Denver and Aurora had certain municipal offenses that the penalties were higher if you were convicted in municipal court in Denver or Aurora than if you were convicted of these similar or equivalent crime in state court.

And uh it was a home rule issue, uh, the the municipalities felt unfortunately the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, said it was a fundamental fairness issue.

And so the penalty in state court and the penalty in municipal court for these same offense must be equivalent.

That happened in December.

Our judge issued an administrative order codify uh saying that we were not going to sentence anyone more strictly than um the equivalent state law offense.

But what this does is this allows for um an off-valve.

I we really appreciate what the judge did.

My recommendation is that we formalize uh that what this will do is it will say explicitly that if for some reason there is a crime that we missed, um, then if there is an equivalent state sentence, that's the penalty that she will impose.

What we also did was pull out the references through that are scattered throughout the code.

It makes a little unwilling for folks, pushed it all up into one, four, four.

So that way there's one place for folks to look.

It's also easier on staff, so we don't have to try and remember to change or update anything as it cascades through the code.

So this is a uh modernization, pushing the sentencing provision up here to bring us into compliance with the two Colorado Supreme Court decisions, and then to make it easier for folks to look at our code, understand what the sentencing requirements are for the various offenses.

And so what you'll see in the packet is the proposed ordinance.

144 is the general penalty that applies to municipal offenses, and then the subsequent pages, all we're doing is we're not changing the context of the municipal offense.

We're taking out the sentencing piece and having it all reflect up in 144.

When will it come to us?

If this is comfortable for you, we can do it uh in fairly short order.

Just clarification.

Probably don't understand counting, but um, so um we had talked about as a home rule town, we're able to impart fines and fees on different things.

I don't think it would be a criminal offense.

Um, but you know, when an oil and gas operator openly vents or has a spill or another violation and doesn't take care of it or whatever.

Um, is this those kinds of things would those be addressed under this?

Do we have I thought it was my understanding that as a home rule town, you can be more restrict more restrictive than the state on things like that.

Um for example in 2017, there was a botched plug and abandoned next to a school here in town, and um there was a notice of violation issued by the state.

Um we were statutory at the time, so we were not able to enforce any fines or fees.

Um, and the state opted not to, so there was no penalty.

Um does that fall under this part of the code or is it separate?

There's a couple of layers in there, so I'm gonna take it apart a little bit.

Um the cases are specific to criminal offenses.

So, for instance, uh car theft, you would spend more time in jail if you were convicted in Denver than if you were convicted in a of car theft in a county court under the state penalty.

So it is a home rule issue, I think.

Unfortunately, that argument did not carry the day.

This is specific to our our criminal offenses.

So if there is an equivalent criminal state offense, there will not be a difference in sentencing.

If it's 10 days in jail in Erie, it better be 10 days in jail under a state conviction.

What is unclear from the cases is what that does generally to our home rule authority.

So the answer to your question is sort of because there are some non-right.

That's my favorite answer.

Um I'm gonna get a shirt that says it depends.

Um what this does though is that this is our general penalty, and it's specific to um things like jail time, fines, etc.

We have additional penalties, particularly in titles nine and 10, where we're dealing with we can take business licenses, we can issue stop work orders, those will still exist, but this is just moving all of the fines and and potential jail pieces up into one location.

So we will only see the changes for those other, I'll say non-criminal offenses if there is the ability to put in fines as well, and we'll just we're pushing all of that up to 144 instead of keeping it in title five, title nine, title 10.

So this primarily is going to the criminal offenses, but we do have options for non-criminal offenses to put penalties, excuse me, fines in as well, and so that won't change.

The reference is simply coming up to 144.

Um, but this is primarily for our criminal offenses.

Well, section 14, 10, 12, 7 is called out in the code in the draft ordinance.

Um so I just it looks like it kind of addresses Article 12, but um do you mean section 14 of the proposed ordinance?

Uh yeah, yeah.

So in Title 10, um, we have the ability to put in fines if people are inappropriately not having inspection or whatever.

So all that's doing is it's eliminating the reference that used to be in there for the penalties and pushing that up to 144.

Nothing is changing other than it's simply we're just drawing an arrow that says we can put in fines as well as other pieces, and so nothing will change other than the reference.

There will no longer be a reference to 144 in 1012-7.

It's going to be up in 144, so we can take all the same actions.

It's simply um a clarity issue in my mind.

Okay.

So that way there's one place for folks to look to see what our fine schedule is.

Okay.

Well, I hope someday we'll include fines and fees.

We've been talking about it for a couple years.

So we'll have to see, I guess, and we'll have to see how it shakes out with the Supreme Court ruling there.

Are you um Council Member Barrett?

Are you aware of another municipality that we could take something they've done in this space to help us all understand?

I I'm not, and I think that's part of the problem is we're all kind of saying who's doing it first.

Yeah.

Okay.

And you know, if it's kind of shifting to um, yeah, I don't know.

I think that's I'm certainly open to it.

Um I know we got a lot on our platters right now, but sooner if there isn't.

Um I know we got a lot on our platters right now, but sooner if there is a list for the draft.

It's just opted out.

Right, I get it.

So in section three six four seven, throwing missiles.

We like to answer D, it's unlawful for any person to only project any missile at or against the bicyclists.

I've had stuff thrown at me, but what about people on scooters and skateboards and other wheeled recreational vehicles?

Wheeled recreational vehicles is sort of a longer term project for me.

Um, because I understand that there are many different types of fun devices that um people use to maneuver um not on their feet and not in a car.

And so one of the longer term projects uh chief has graciously assigned me um a couple voluntal a couple of officers to come and we're going to learn about all the fun types.

So I do believe that we will start modernizing that, but it is a capacity issue.

Um it's on the radar and then that's it is on the radar.

It just seemed very specific, and I understand having been hit by things, but it just had me thinking other users.

Yeah, so at some point, um, one of the longer range goals for my office is to go through and figure all these fund devices out and then go through it.

You'll see what I would anticipate is we'll bring to you uh some code proposed changes to say, oh, look, there's all these whatevers.

But yeah, it's on it's on the radar.

And and just for clarification, it it may not fit exactly in the throwing missiles, but if somebody throws something at you and hit you with it, give us a call.

There's other things that we can look at in terms of criminality, there's a solid is reckless endangerment, there's all kinds of things that we can do it.

So don't think like if they're riding by on a bike, they can throw whatever they want at me just because it doesn't fit there.

We'll find something.

So give us a call.

Sometimes it's hard to get a plate number.

Yeah, right, right, right, right, right.

Is that what we knew?

Or we'll get them with littering if we can.

There are offerings in here at you, that might be a First Amendment issue.

I'm just wondering if there's a legal definition of missile.

It's like any obstacle.

We do define missile.

Any object or substance or substance?

It could be a cup, it could be a doesn't have to have a guidance system.

No, no, it's a missile.

That's right, that's right.

So for now, kids on big wheels are fair game.

Do you hear me, Council?

Not fair game, not fair.

All right, let me move us off.

I will I will look at this and uh I just said one question on section 10 where talks about engine combustion and dynamic braking.

I mean, don't we have trucks driving through town that you know uh have engine compression breaking or we do, but they're not allowed to use it.

Use it.

Okay.

So if you hear that hammering, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's they're using their jig brake, right?

Their acceleration break, and they're not, there's an ordinance we have signs posted at the town limits saying they're not supposed to use it.

So again, get a license plate, tough.

It's certainly call us and we'll we'll try and address that issue if it comes up.

Okay, great.

Yeah, because I like we've got all kinds of trucks driving through town, but I didn't realize that they they weren't allowed to use it.

And you'll hear that you'll be that's great because you think about going past a school or you know, something like that.

Like I hear every once in a while.

Yeah.

You have to save that for you know, they'll pass.

Yeah, yeah.

Right.

Yeah, exactly.

Uh thanks.

All right, we're gonna move on to item 2026 238, a discussion of a proposed ordinance of the town, council of the town eerie, adding G section 61018 to the year municipal code regulating sitting or lying down in public right of ways.

Back to the attorney.

Yeah, yeah, let's start with her.

Uh, yeah, we can we can start with her.

Um this is a proposed ordinance for policy setting for council.

Um I when I joined, uh, there was a packet for me, and this was part of the packets.

So I understand that council would like to have a conversation about whether we should or should not regulate sitting or lying down in a public right-of-way.

Um, one of the things that you'll want to think about as we talk about policy making is how um uh assertive you would like the ordinance to be.

This is drafted to allow no um sitting lying in a public right-of-way.

There are some exemptions, as you'll see uh through there.

So it's uh medical emergency, it's utilizing a mobility device, um, operating or moving in a space related to a commercial establishment or uh parade festival, etc.

And then during a uh something that's furnished by the town.

So for instance, I'm thinking of um uh a bus bench or a bus shelter that would be exempt from sitting or lying in the right-of-way, um, waiting for public transportation.

So this is a policy making conversation, have that conversation with council, see if council is interested, see if you'd like any changes, but this is at least a first draft for council's consideration.

This is totally separate from um what we see over at our shopping centers, which is on private property, which so this wouldn't apply to that.

Yeah, that's correct.

My understanding is this would just be public rights away.

So we looked at it.

This is very popular in places like street malls or places where there's businesses that have access off that public right-of-way that's the you know on the sidewalk where you don't want folks necessarily lying down or sitting there doing their daily business in the in the right-of-way to access those businesses.

So you see it on the 16th Street Mall, like Larimer Square.

I think Denver had something that said that you can't sit or lie down there.

We don't have a lot of areas like that.

It might be applicable on breaks, but we don't see that issue there either.

Yeah.

So yeah, this is just public right.

Correct.

So what a goodness audience is it like are we getting Larab cases or well, I mean, we're not having we're seeing like the mayor said, we're seeing folks on our private property where they are sitting at the entrances where people pull in.

It's not necessarily the public right-of-way, people drive there, but it's it's a parking lot.

And so as far as the public right-of-way goes, we're not seeing folks on the median at 287 in a rabbit hole very much.

Uh, we're not seeing folks at County Line and Erie Parkway on the median, um, those kinds of things.

We're we're seeing them more on private property.

So I don't know that this is a pressing issue for at least the police department right now.

What did it come to the level of an argument?

Who puts it here?

As far as why we're talking about it.

Yeah.

It was part of a bigger package of other um ordinances and we passed.

I'm trying to think what the other two.

Oh, I think it was the fire ban and the or there were some uh e-bikes.

Yeah, it was discussed all as a package at that time.

And this one can all e-bikes and disrelated.

They're not.

It's just it's just code change.

I was just looking at like orders to be considered as an ordinance by itself, and you know, others I see like code changes that isn't need.

And I was just saying to it why are we not talking about it?

Yeah, I mean, it's basically I put everything on the agenda or merit that puts everything on the agenda, right?

Or we work together to put it on the agenda.

One thing I'll say is this is this is a kind of ordinance that we're seeing in other municipalities.

They're doing it in places where it is an issue and it's something you might want to discuss.

It's again, like Brina said, I think it's a policy issue for the council to decide where do we want to land?

Is this the time for this ordinance?

Where are we at?

So is there any downside?

I guess I'm trying to understand the big picture, right?

It's the first time we've got a chance to talk about it.

I think that depends on your perspective on what you would if you're trying to solve a current problem or if you're trying to future proof.

Yeah.

Because this is really preventing uh camping um that's actually linked to the process.

This is not.

No, this is not.

Should we talk about the other one first and then we'll before we go there?

Is this, I mean, to what you're talking about on private property.

I mean, we're such a we're talking about panhandling and those types of issues.

So if there, because I know some municipalities do have uh uh panhandling ordinances.

Well, would that apply to private property or is that uh jump in here?

I was gonna say the same thing you want to run.

Well, yeah, go ahead.

Okay.

Pan handling is likely protected First Amendment activity.

Okay.

So there is going to be a very, very narrow case um use case for it ever to be used.

So it would be more along the lines of somebody who's extremely aggressive, taking not taking no for an answer, causing a disruption, being in uh blocking ingress or egress.

The the use case is extremely narrow.

Courts routinely hold that panhandling is protected First Amendment activity.

So we would not be able to even some of the ones on safety in the meeting standing in the median have been questioned.

Because what will happen is um in communities where fire departments do things like pass the boot, uh, we will then move along our firefighters.

Uh that this would be an ordinance for everyone, whether you um are doing it for charitable purposes or not.

So you would want to think about the law of unintended consequences here because you won't be able to carve out other types of expressive activity.

Yeah.

You could you can stand with a sign almost on any public right-of-way as long as you're not obstructing traffic.

Doesn't matter what the sign says for the most part.

We just don't look at sign contents of the case.

Exactly, exactly.

The proofs of the prices town of Crailburg.

Let's then have First Amendment rights.

So yeah, it's very difficult to limit.

I think at least the what we had maybe one or two emails that we saw on this.

And I think the main primary concern was was safety because they are so close, but if if the right-of-way and some understand this right, so like the entrance to uh the entrance to safe way or lows off Erie Parkway if they're on the corner adjacent to Erie Parkway, is that right-away or is that considered part of the private right-of-way from my experience varies, but depending on the roadway.

Sometimes it's wider, sometimes it's smaller.

Sidewalk is usually the right-of-way, usually anything inside the street signs.

So think speed limit signs, anything like that towards this that's the right-of-way.

Okay.

And so if they're up on the median on lows, that is not the public right-of-way, that's private property.

Okay.

And the sidewalks internal to the development would not be considered public right-of-way.

That is private property.

Yeah, there's a bunch of trash that I got a couple people reached out, and then I just coincidentally was walking there and I saw it, and then it was cleaned up the next day.

But it was probably in the right-of-way because it was not in that medium, but it was out.

Well, and interestingly enough, property owners are responsible for cleaning up that right of way, even though the town technically it's just like when you've got a Broadway on your on your yard, you're responsible for the maintenance there.

And they're usually pretty good.

The property owners have been really good with our code officer going out and saying, hey, there's an issue here.

And I think even Lowe's has some folks that go out several times.

Yeah, yeah.

In general, it'll happen and then it and they clean it up.

Right.

So I'm not hearing a pressing need for this, or it's gonna do much.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna say too.

And I think um, you know, we have the opportunity since this is a not really a priority or an issue in town.

Um, we have the opportunity to help and lift people out of this sort of issue where they're sitting or lying in the right-of-way, or we have the opportunity to make it a you know exponentially worse by creating a scenario where they come in contact with um law enforcement and then eventually you know get a ticket or citation or fine or fee that they can't pay, and those build up and then they're arrested, and then it just creates this incredible cycle that's just impossible to break out of.

So I I really think that this could do more harm and create more problems um than the intention, yeah, the unintended consequences is Rena was talking about.

So um actually done quite a bit of research over the last month on this to understand what it looks like in surrounding communities, and um it was illegal.

Uh, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled this was unconstitutional, you couldn't even have these rules until 2024, and the Supreme Court overturned that in the um it's a reversal of precedent, and so there have been more, I guess, of these, but I think they'll be challenged as well.

But um, I also met with their co-responders, and we have kind of predictably about four folks, and so this would be a pretty targeted um issue, and it's not necessarily even in the right-of-way that we're talking about.

Um so just doing a deep dive over the last month and meeting with a lot of different people and um the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless sent me some information, and I met with Commissioner Lochman in Boulder County, and and the um the co-responders was very thankful.

They had a lot of great perspective for me.

So I I think that this could have the unintended consequence of increasing sort of what we're trying to probably trying to um decrease in town.

So um, those were my concerns with this, and I think you know, this is a great discussion point.

Perhaps there's opportunity for us here to get ahead of the problem since this is not a serious issue in our town.

Um, look at ways to invest in and connect folks to community resources.

Our co-responders, for example, can't buy bus passes for folks and just hand them over.

So what are some I think we have the opportunity maybe to have a conversation with their co-responders to talk about what are resources that would be helpful?

What could we do as a council and with our policy that would help to lift people out of a situation like this and increase safety?

And because that's always, you know, I think should be the baseline.

So yeah, so I mean, I have many pages of notes, but those are all kind of stuff there.

But I think we should look at ways to support and do that in a way that is hopefully not going to accidentally increase the issue.

I totally agree about the lifting out and not getting caught in the spiral of jail and you know, getting out of there.

Can we even approach somebody sitting in the middle of a median panhandling and just ask them if they need help or if they or do we pretty much hands off?

No, that's generally our approach.

I mean, it will get calls.

I I think we I think we send out some information about we had about 50 calls over the last six months, welfare checks, where folks are concerned that someone's out there in danger or not kids with that.

Yeah, yeah, kids with them or or something like that.

And we always approach with a how can we help or how can we help this person?

Uh that's what we do.

We call the co-responders, we see what resources we can provide them, we can do those things, and and we try to lift them out as much as we can.

The hardest thing is to help someone who doesn't necessarily want the help.

And there are those individuals out there that don't want to be bothered, they're mistrustful of the police.

They're that's why co-responders help a lot.

Um, but even with our co-responders, sometimes they don't want the resources they want to be left alone, they want to do what they do.

And while I I completely agree with councilmember, it's not a huge issue with 50 calls in six months for our officers, it aren't a ton, but they are increasing.

I mean, I think it's something you just got to be aware of, and and we will uh we'll approach it.

Even if we if we pass an ordinance, our approach to this will not change.

My officers are very skilled with de-escalation and crisis intervention, and we're not gonna just go out there and start throwing handcuffs off people.

Um in fact, the ordinance I think the ones we have drafted and prevent that.

Yeah, okay.

We're not gonna do that.

We're we're gonna try and help them first.

We're gonna let them know what resources are available and encourage them to go there.

And if it becomes a persistent continuing problem, which it can in some communities, then you have another tool to use.

At that point, there would be other ordinances to stand on to intervene.

So a couple of things that I learned from my research is it's it's not in Erie, but it's on our doorstep.

It's it's in Denver and it's in Boulder and it being um homelessness and and lack of resources, and so I what we're talking about is um in 2024 to 2025, there was a 69% increase in young families um finding themselves homeless.

That's a huge huge uh increase.

And women and particularly women of color are more vulnerable to becoming homeless than the general population, and our veterans are a huge percentage of homeless people who are sitting and lying in um or camping.

And the one really encouraging statistic that I've I read through this is that um 76% of people who have been sort of had that intervention uh in Denver or Boulder report having a disability as well.

So um, but the one really encouraging thing was that that between Denver and Longmont's really targeted approach to addressing homelessness among veterans, they were able to decrease that by 16%.

And that's just so encouraging because they really put some resources and some intention behind addressing it rather than criminalizing it, and we're able to move the needle on it.

And I think that's where we could really look at this and say, what can we do to get ahead of it?

I mean, to be able to, as a town, what can we do to connect people to resources?

And um, I mean, we have amazing community-based organizations from Sister Carmen to Together to um uh motherhouse and EFAA and all kinds of things just right in our region that we could really be investing in.

So I think I mean, before it becomes a huge issue in Erie, we could have a plan and be strategic.

Okay, so I think overall, I think we're good just not moving this one forward.

That's good.

Um private property if they have no loitering signs, that's up to them to deal with, or do they call you if they have no loitering signs?

Yeah, when you have and and loitering is a tough one because you can't make it illegal to just be there.

But the property owner can say, hey, this person is here causing this issue, whether it's trash or um they're bothering my customers, whatever that might be.

Yeah, they have the right to call us and say, I want this person off my property.

And we'll get that on occasion.

Um that does happen sometimes because the person's causing a disturbance or they've done something that that's disrupting the business.

You'd still approach it the same way.

Yes, absolutely help.

Yeah, good.

Absolutely.

We always we always we lead with co-responders and resources and and try and help them and and uh get them to where they can be in a safer place.

All right, let me log back in and take us to our last one.

Yeah, camping.

I want to read it so that um if anyone's watching the tape and try to look it up, they can look it up.

Or somebody else can read it.

I can read uh discussion of a proposed ordinance of the town council, the town of Erie adding a new section six-six-17 to the Erie Municipal Code to regulate unauthorized camping in town.

So this is another policy level conversation.

Councillor Barrett is correct.

The um Ninth Circuit had the city or excuse me, the uh case was Bell versus Boise, and there was a companion case out of Grants Pass, Oregon.

And uh in the Ninth Circuit, it was unlawful to enforce any no camping uh or loitering ordinances unless there was a shelter bed available.

The government had the obligation to prove that there was a shelter bed available.

Only at that point could you take any enforcement action.

That case went to the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court renamed the cases for procedural reasons that don't matter here.

And the cases called grants pass at the United States Supreme Court level.

And in that case, they said that the Ninth Circuit didn't follow or evaluate the case appropriately and uh struck that part of the the court order.

So this particular ordinance um is for discussion for council for policy setting reasons.

This would ban camping on public and private property without written permission from the owner.

And this is for council to decide if this is something that they are interested in, what the parameters would look like, what um what policy goals you have with this.

It will be um it will be some a little bit of a challenge because um written proof is is the evidence that would be needed under this ordinance.

We could talk about what that would look like.

Um we could talk about how far council wants to go, we could change it to public property only.

This is drafted fairly broadly.

Um, this is another one that was drafted, and when I joined, it was as part of the the packet going forward.

So here for a policy level discussion to see what council's uh interest is in this particular ordinance.

What's the um I I guess I don't get the private because if somebody wanted to pitch a tent in my backyard and I want them to, no problem.

If I didn't want them to, wouldn't I just call the police to say, hey, somebody's trespassing on my property and do the same thing?

This is designed for um, I I imagine the right-of-way conversation because if there is a business that is closed, doesn't answer the phone, whatever, um this would provide some enforcement tools for those types of situations.

All right, is my guess based on what I'm reading.

And maybe during the pandemic we had some of this, maybe we didn't, I don't know.

Do you run into this at all?

You'll see this a lot in large parking lots like Walmart, Lowe's, those kinds of things where the business owners don't they don't, I don't want to say they don't care, but they don't like you want to park your your RV on the Walmart parking lot.

Used to be, they would they'd be fine with that.

And you can park there and camp there and live there, and and then it starts to carry you get more people, and then eventually, but but this is designed, I think, to address those situations where the property owner is not taking action, like hey, get them, I don't want these folks on my property, and just allowing it to happen and creating kind of an issue for the community is my take on it for private property.

Because you're right, currently if they call, we'll you can't trespass.

Yeah, we can trespass them and have them leave.

Yeah, okay.

So I'm thinking council member.

Look at this similar to the last one.

It looks, it seems like it's a complicated solution, looking for a problem.

We don't have a problem.

Well, we don't have a problem, but what I worry about, and again, I don't see this in Erie, but um uh you know, my daughter lives off 120th, so I'm oftentimes driving by uh getting off I-25 and 120th, and they're huge encampments, you know, right off there, and then again, people panhandling, you know, and and it's an extremely dangerous situation.

Um so I look at this for maybe we don't have anything out there right now, but if it ever became uh uh an issue off Erie Parkway and I-25, especially if we ever get development out towards their and I know that's years of the thing.

So um the and I kind of I I've talked to several people at CML kind of about these types of things that uh and and uh discuss this with the mayor Thornton or about the a specific intersection.

So that that's um uh again, it's it's not about to me, it's not about like you know somebody who's on a street corner or or has an RV in a parking lot.

I don't I don't think that's a big issue, but I I think there is um a safety issue when when people are doing this, you know, right you know, under or underpass under the highway and coming up, and and so um you know balancing those two things I thought I think is important.

So I'm not saying we this needs to be a hot issue now, but I I think maybe keep this on the radar.

Yeah, we might.

Well, our neighbors want to have this ordinance or one very similar to it.

Um I think it was drafted looking at that one.

Um, and I think you're right.

I think it's to address the large encampments, the things that pop up where you're starting to have some community safety issues, and uh, we haven't seen that yet in Erie.

Um, could it be coming, maybe?

I don't know.

I know Lafayette has some issues on the Cold Creek Trail in case.

We do and they were having some issues around Walmart as well that they were trying to address.

And and we did some research with them.

We asked them, you know, how's that going?

How's it?

They they enforce rarely, they have the same approach redo.

They haven't taken many to jail.

I think they've made two arrests in a year with just those who they what they find is voluntary compliance that generally people are okay moving on once they get told that there's a no-camping ordinance and they they go somewhere else, and they do provide shelter resources and those things.

So I'm would shelter resources be boulder, Lone Mont, sister garment a little bit, although it's not shelter, that's more food and resources about it.

Yeah, yeah, I'm okay not doing anything with this one.

I think if we had a a case that you know was a problem and you couldn't do something about it because we didn't have this, then yeah, I think I'd be open.

But yeah, it's a solution to a problem we don't have yet.

And so I'm okay just hovering unless there's strong desire.

Fairly lukewarm lukewarm on this one.

We don't have a problem.

And I don't I don't want to give the impression too that we can't like even if we would have a problem with a certain property, we'd work that property on like we did with Keek Subers on the street racers gathering down there.

We're gonna go talk to that and say, hey, what they're doing is not necessarily legal, but it's causing an issue in the community.

Can you work with us and let the street racers know, hey, this is not okay?

And we'd continue to do that.

We don't need a no-camping ordinance to do that.

We would obviously address any community concerns.

Okay.

Any other okay, I think uh that's it.

And it's uh you're welcome for all the time back.

7-11.

And uh we'll officially adjourn the study session.

Thanks.

We want to create a more hospitable and happy climate.

From education and outreach to planting program and tree rebate.

The tree advisory board is helping a rooted interface.