Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
The Golden City Council convened on October 13, 2026, starting with a study session at 5:00 PM and a regular business meeting at 7:00 PM. The study session included presentations from Jeffco Public Schools on ballot measures, a review of the proposed 2027 budget, and a discussion of Flock ALPR technology along with a new business proposal to reconsider the Flock contract. The regular business meeting featured public comments, council updates, consent agenda approval, an appeal of a Planning Commission decision (Resolution 3365), a public hearing on the 2027 budget, and a discussion on the city manager vacancy process.
Jeffco Public Schools Presentation (Study Session): Interim Superintendent Dr. Rob Stein and Board Member Peter Gibbons presented the district's budget challenges and two ballot initiatives (5A – $73M mill levy override for competitive wages and CTE; 5B – $60M capital mill for deferred maintenance). They highlighted Jeffco's above-average student performance, low administrative overhead (5%), and the competitive disadvantage compared to neighboring districts ($1,478 per pupil gap). Councilors asked about Warren Tech capacity, teacher compensation, declining enrollment impacts, and accountability measures. Councilor Evans expressed appreciation for Golden's strong schools.
2027 Proposed Budget Review (Study Session & Regular Meeting): Interim City Manager Carly Lorentz and Finance Director Joseph Allaire presented the two-year budget (2027-2028). Key points: budget priorities include maintaining services, caring for existing infrastructure, and advancing council priorities. Proposed staffing: two firefighter positions (to reduce overtime), a community energy coordinator (grant-funded, temporary), converting a community service officer to a patrol officer, and several part-time support positions. A graphic designer position was vacated and will be contracted. Property tax revenues are declining due to state policy changes; sales tax growth assumed at 1% per year. The fire fund faces pressure from flat property tax revenue and rising costs; general fund transfers to fire fund increase to $3.4 million (2027) and $4.5 million (2028). Council discussed staffing level justifications, fire fund sustainability, and the need for clearer communication on service demands. Capital improvement plan highlights include Lions Park playground replacement, White Ash Park improvements, Colfax Complete Streets ($6M), Highway 93 improvements, and the new police/municipal building ($12M remaining). Station 22 design deferred to 2029 due to fund constraints. Council will hold another study session in November before final adoption in December.
Flock ALPR Discussion (Study Session): Police Chief Michelle Wagner and Commander Ben Salentine presented how Golden PD uses Flock cameras (11 fixed cameras since 2023) and the photo radar van. Data is retained 30 days, not shared with ICE or federal agencies, and requires a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Searches are tagged and audited monthly. Council members raised concerns about data aggregation, vendor data security, sharing with outside agencies (e.g., via other jurisdictions), and potential Fourth Amendment issues. Mayor Weinberg suggested a follow-up conversation with vendor security experts. Councilor Knecht and Kurzinski also proposed a New Business Proposal to reconsider the Flock contract (see Key Outcomes).
New Business Proposal – Reconsidering Flock Contract (Regular Meeting): Councilors Knecht and Kurzinski proposed a “rules before tools” approach: discontinue current ALPR contract (Flock) pending development of a citywide surveillance and data governance policy, citing 15 Colorado communities that have canceled or paused Flock contracts since June. They requested an interim moratorium on new surveillance technology contracts. Council debated the scope, including whether it would affect the speed radar van and future technologies. Some councilors (Cameron, Kurzinski, Knecht) expressed support for the proposal and a moratorium, while others (Evans, Fout) wanted more information on the vendor’s backend data practices. Ultimately, three councilors expressed support to move the proposal forward as a council initiative, and staff will bring it back for a final vote at a future business meeting.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision – Resolution 3365 (2122 Jackson Street): The applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial of form zone site plans for three lots (compact cottage, relocated historic house, compact cottage triplex) at 2122 Jackson Street. Staff and the appellant argued that the proposed alley access via a private access tract met the code’s alley requirement, citing the comprehensive plan goals of infill and preserving historic structures. After deliberation, council voted 4-2 to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and reaffirm the director’s approval (Resolution 3365A). Councilor Evans noted the code was clear on alley access intent; Councilor Fout raised concerns about terminology clarity.
City Manager Vacancy Discussion: Council discussed the recruitment process for a new city manager. Mayor Pro Tem Bitry and Mayor Weinberg recommended selecting SGR as the recruitment firm at a fixed cost not to exceed $18,000, noting local experience and a compressed timeline. They also presented an updated job posting text. Council approved both items, and staff will post the position immediately. Regular updates will be provided at future council meetings.
Okay, it is five o'clock, so we're gonna kick off the study session tonight. Um, we've got a full agenda tonight, so we'll try to keep everything moving on um on time. Uh we're gonna kick off with um presentation from Jefferson County. Hey guys. Uh we'll kick off with a presentation from um Dr. Roth Stein from Jefferson County Public Schools. Um introduce yourself. Hi. Thanks for having me here tonight. Um, I'm gonna be as brief as I can and leave as much time for questions on how we can be joined at this very moment. I was about to say I'm gonna be joined any minute now by um Director Gibbons, Peter Gibbons is uh elected board member for Jefferson County Public Schools, and I am the interim superintendent. So I was hired this summer to um lead the district for a one-year interim contract, and I'm uh not really retired but a former superintendent. I've been doing other um not so full-time projects the past few years. Um but I grew up in the Denver metro area, I graduated from Denver High School, so I'm very familiar with the broader um community, um, but I'm really getting to know Jeff Coke intimately. Um, and um I think what I'd just like to do with you all tonight is to uh provide you some sort of current context on the state of Jeff CO schools and then particularly provide some factual information about the two mill levy initiatives that that are on your ballots right now for the November election. Um, Director Gibbons probably will want to also um I assume ask for the support of the council in in his role as a board member, and we'll both be available to answer questions. Um overview, you should be familiar with all this in general. Um Jeff Co. Public Schools is Colorado's second largest school district. We have about 74,000 students, 145 schools. We're actually the largest employer in Jefferson County. Um, and so a lot of people think about the impact on children, but maybe they're not always aware of as much of the income impact on the economy. Um we also have several uh two standalone uh preschool programs as well as um early childhood programming in most of our elementary schools, which is also where you know high-leverage early or uh education programs and um economical um development really really intersect. Um as a newcomer to Jeff CO, before I even first met with the board, I did some research on the district and I was really quite surprised. Um as um somewhat of an academic, I I take a skeptics eye um at uh when I look at data, and and so it wasn't surprising to me given Jeff CO's demographics that our schools and our students are pretty much performing way above state average on measures of student learning like test scores, um both uh CMAS and KD in third grade through eighth grade and in the high school um PSAT SAT suite. Um but again that might be a function of demographics. So I disaggregated and I looked at our major subgroups. I looked at students with disabilities, students who qualified for free lunch, which is a proxy for low income, or students living in poverty. I looked at students of color. Um and for all those demographic subgroups, I actually saw that they are also outperforming their statewide peers. So that was quite and by the way, graduation rates, the same story overall and disaggregated by subgroups. What that means to me is that Jeff Cole schools are punching above their weight. That not like we don't have challenges and there aren't particular grade levels for subgroups where we need to renew emphasis and look at new strategies, but overall, the district is really outperforming what well would one would expect from a statistical perspective. And when I started to get to know the district, I realized that that isn't accidental. Accidental is really quite intentional. It has a lot to do with strategic coherence, identifying problems and using a performance management management approach over time to really um zoom in on and address the problems when they arise. So I'm quite impressed as an educator, and it's allowed me also to come in and not be putting out fires, but really help the district um sort of in the strategic transition um big picture moving forward. This slide is the best slide I think I've ever seen in terms of explaining the school districts financial challenges compared to our neighboring school districts, and it's not a bad primer on school funding in Colorado. So if you look at the green bar and the stock stack by bar chart, that's what we call our total program. School funding in Colorado is allocated based on a formula per pupil. And the funding formula has a couple factors that are either risk factors or cost of living factors. So depending where a child or on the profile of the whole school district by formula, the state allocates a set dollar amount per student. And for JEFCO, that base funding, I'm not wearing my faraway glasses. It's just over 11,000, 11,385. There's nothing we can do about that. But what you'll see is that our base funding is slightly lower than our neighboring school districts. Where it gets more challenging is we're allowed to go back to voters locally for two different kinds of mill levies. One is a mill levy override, and by state statute, we can ask our local voters for up to 28% above our base funding, our total program funding.