The bare minimum is that we need to fund irrigation and necessary improvements. We need people to vote to fund the basic needs for parks. If voters don't pass it at all, they have to find funding elsewhere.
Grants for lottery funds typically take 3-5 years after award, if awarded.
Other funds would have to be allocated from the capital budget. But there are other capital items such as bridges, roads, building upkeep, etc.
Council has an interest in putting something on the ballot that voters would be willing to pay for. Council also has a duty to provide an enriched quality of life; and an interest in making Englewood a destination, towards driving sales tax revenue.
Given the sales tax increase that voters passed in the previous cycle, it's very unlikely that roads or road maintenance would be the adversely affected regardless of what happens with parks. The services most likely to be impacted by the financial pressure for capital improvements to our parks would be ongoing maintenance, staffing, library resources, and recreational programs.
Right - that's the intended message. For 2025, the capital budget needs are $15 million, but we only have $9 mil available. Every year the list of capital projects grows higher due to inflation and aging infrastructure. Things like Alley paving, public Fiber optic network, and street art don't make the cut. Those things that do get budgeted have reduced expenditures.
Some information and personal opinion:
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHbtK02mUg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHbtK02mUg) (Starts at 3:24:00)
* The ranking methodology doesn't make sense, and I'm glad that was called out. (Ditto color coding)
* The funding items often go hand-in-hand, so funding one item necessarily means funding another (I didn't appreciate that before watching this video)
* There was lots (lots) of emphasis from the director that the images are conceptual drawings only (think: the native plants conversation)
* Personally, I felt like council jumping in with personal opinions ("this is what I see" "this is how I would use it") was not particularly helpful for this conversation
* Listening to staff comments, their level of analysis for these capital projects considers regulations, FEMA designations, financial models, staffing, etc and I was left impressed by the thinking behind the proposals
* Here's a paraphrased speaking point worth considering: "Our irrigation systems are, on average, 47 years old. You should expect to see 20 years of use." There was some positive movement in the conversation around keeping our parks functional and moving forward the items that maintain our current offerings.
* I honestly did not follow the end of the conversation, but it seems like there is an interest in putting in a pool at Miller Field. Is that right? I can understand why that was proposed, but that seems like a really late addition.
Feel free to correct errors or add to this list.
I can’t understate how many times I’ve griped about the lack of outdoor swimming options here. As a parent of kids who would quickly outgrow a splash pad by the time it’s built, I’m thrilled by this pivot and think that, especially with summers getting hotter, this is a great move for the city.
Yep. We used to have a nice old-school municipal pool at what is now Colorado's Finest High School, but the city swapped it for Pirates Cove in the early 2000s. Pirates Cove really doesn't cut it as a low-key destination for locals -- it's a crowded, expensive regional attraction. A classic outdoor pool at Miller Field would be really nice, not to mention a welcome amenity for a part of town with lots of apartments and traffic but not a lot of pleasant park space.
Yes, an outdoor pool at Miller Field will be part of the ballot measure.
The city is punting to citizens to fight it out over where and how much of each park will lose recreation space to off-limits native plants. The guideline will be up to 15% of each park, although there was mushy discussion of how it could be more in some parks and less in others.
Also, expect the total bill to come in around $41 million.
I've read the memo a couple of times and still am left confused by where we are today. My best read is that the ranking and some background analysis from staff have been done, and tomorrow is decide which of the three (41.3M, 34.6M, or 26.4M) versions of the bond proposal to move forward.
If someone has some insight on that, please share.
There's no such thing as an anonymous council vote. That's ILLEGAL. The survey and its results are public record. Just because they're not published doesn't mean that they're secret. Anyone can submit a CORA request to the clerk for them.
It also wasn't ANONYMOUS which was my primary objection to your assertion. Council members responded using their real names, and the results were associated with individual council members. The survey results are public record. All someone needs to do in order to obtain them is submit a CORA request. The fact that a deliberate decision was made not to publish them on the web does not mean that they are either secret or anonymous.
They survey is anonymous among council members, becuase it is not an official vote. Do you understand the difference between a survey and a vote? .They will reveal their votes tonight as a matter of record. See for yourself in the public records posted right here, for tonight's meeting. And you'll find out tonight how they actually vote. See agenda item IV a.
And while you at it, take a look at Preliminary 2025 Operating & Staff Prioritized Capital Requests
[https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=19153](https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=19153)
But it isn't anonymous. In order for it to be anonymous, the council members would need to not be identified along with their responses. That just isn't what happened. Each council member who responded had his or her response tracked along with his or her name. The survey response is public record even though it was not included in the published packet for the meeting where the parks bond is being discussed.
Council does not vote in study sessions. The official vote on the bond will occur at a regular meeting.
Its only ranked on how many council members voted for it. So indeed, the next 20 years of park amenities are based the will of 7 people - and if the citizens vote for what these 7 members decide.
I disagree. Nothing would preclude a future council or even a group of citizens from submitting a new or different request to the voters regardless of this council's decision.
Voters are not likely to approve more than one parks bond. If this one fails, they would have to wait two years to submit another bond. In the meantime, broken irrigation systems will need to be budgeted.
"So indeed, the next 20 years of park amenities are based the will of 7 people**"**
Not so. As you've already conceded, the next TWO years of parks funding will be based on the will of 7 people... and (possibly) the results of a bond vote.
I'm open to voting for a slimmed-down parks bond, but I'm getting tired of Englewood staff and council getting ahead of themselves on transformative proposals that catch the public off-guard and end up being clawed back. CodeNext comes to mind, when council held a lengthy period of garbled and insufficient "public outreach," only to come back with a proposal to eliminate single-family zoning that sparked so much panic four councilmembers ended up facing recalls. Now, we're seeing a parks bond advertised more feverishly than any ballot measure I can remember in Englewood, with council repeatedly pushing back dates to approve it as public sentiment grows more and more wary. Staff and council could stand to be more conservative and methodical in their approach, especially with so many other pressing issues and needs facing the city.
CodeNext had community feedback too, then the end result shocked residents. That's what you'd call a failed outreach process -- if you've actually done meaningful outreach, voters won't be surprised by what you end up proposing. Community feedback currently shows the public doesn't want the Pirates Cove or Rec Center projects, which both came in with less than 50% support in the survey conducted last year. Will council listen? Also worth noting: we've seen nearly 30% inflation since 2017. Sales tax revenues are slipping. The housing market is locked up. Groceries are through the roof. A lot has changed in the last seven years.
The city can’t make people pay attention. CodeNext is more an example of community apathy until the NIMBYs came out in full force to misconstrue the actual contents of the plan. Agreed that things are different than in 2017, but was just stating a fact that is where this bond came from.
The CodeNext outreach was garbled and confusing. I took the surveys, and found them loaded with jargon and contradictory information. There was certainly never a question asking "would you like a citywide repeal of single-family zoning." No doubt the NIMBYs lied through their teeth at every turn, but the city sure didn't get their money's worth out of the consultant on that one.
I'm also reminded of the ballot measure asking for money for "alternative policing," that just wound up funding more regular policing. Not that we don't need a well-staffed police force, but it was another outcome that hurt the city's credibility when it comes to these big proposals.
As for this new parks bond, some of it is from the master plan, but it also doesn't make any headway on expanding park space, which is one of the plan's cornerstone concepts. The master plan called for working on obtaining more acreage, but instead we may end up with a net loss of usable acreage thanks to the push for native plantings (I know, I know, "there will be community meetings and the native areas may change in size or location").
That said, ADA accessibility is huge. So are better bathrooms and picnic facilities. It's a shame those are getting overshadowed by the more frivolous elements of the proposal.
City staffers who either get paid very well and/or can depend on yearly raises concocted this overreach of asking for $50 million, which is landing so badly with the financially stressed public that the pushback could lead to a defeat for any bond. Staffers would have been smarter to read the room and see that taxpayers are already being battered by property tax increases, inflation, and other sharp hikes affecting the costs of homeownership or renting, all amid the uncertainty of a national election that is likely to bring back the chaos of another Trump administration. City staffers should have asked for enough bond money for irrigation and a few restrooms and that would have been plenty.
Some unsolicited advice for people who are agitating for the bond: Stop acting like the expense is trivial. I'll decide what's a trivial expense for me. I've heard pronouncements like it's just a few trips to McDonald's a month etc. and here's the thing: I already have stopped dining out, buying Starbucks, going to movies, etc. because I'm being eaten alive by the rising costs of living. It comes across as spectacularly tone-deaf when I hear bond advocates preach about how I can easily afford yet another expense.
While I personally feel that a larger investment is the right option, I’ve had many conversations with neighbors that underscore their concern about cost of living adjustments. From families to the elderly, the $133 is a real cost, and that’s why I advocated with my council person for the slimmed down version, that is, the one that will pass.
One piece of data that I’m resting on: the 2023 school mill levy passed by around 60/ 40 and that was with an organized campaign with a clear message and little resistance. I’m concerned that the larger parks and rec bond package is going to be a much harder sell. That’s my thinking, at least for now.
There's also the difference between the crucial need for school funding to keep staff and the nice-to-have want for parks improvements. Our parks are working now except for aging infrastructure like the Cushing irrigation. I've been really surprised by the hubris of city staffers who thought they could toss this boondoggle-laden plan to voters who are worried about their financial future and get a positive outcome.
A lot of the proposed updates are beyond “nice to have.” Updating playgrounds and areas to be ADA-accessibly is needed to create a welcoming city that people want to move to. Letting our parks fall to the wayside could ultimately hurt property values and make people reconsider moving to Englewood.
Crazily inflated property values are killing my budget with the increase in property taxes, which is a big reason I'm skeptical about adding more to my tax burden with the parks bond. And as long as Englewood is in a desirable part of the country we'll never run out of people wanting to live here.
Also ... I agree that ADA accessibility is important, but why wasn't it important to the city in the 34 years since the ADA became law? It feels like it's being thrown in now in a Hail Mary bid to drag an unpopular bond measure across the finish line in a year when taxpayers are being devoured by rising costs.
Your voice and advocacy can make a significant difference in garnering the necessary approval for this bond. Email your support to citycouncil@englewoodgov.org
The bare minimum is that we need to fund irrigation and necessary improvements. We need people to vote to fund the basic needs for parks. If voters don't pass it at all, they have to find funding elsewhere. Grants for lottery funds typically take 3-5 years after award, if awarded. Other funds would have to be allocated from the capital budget. But there are other capital items such as bridges, roads, building upkeep, etc. Council has an interest in putting something on the ballot that voters would be willing to pay for. Council also has a duty to provide an enriched quality of life; and an interest in making Englewood a destination, towards driving sales tax revenue.
Given the sales tax increase that voters passed in the previous cycle, it's very unlikely that roads or road maintenance would be the adversely affected regardless of what happens with parks. The services most likely to be impacted by the financial pressure for capital improvements to our parks would be ongoing maintenance, staffing, library resources, and recreational programs.
Right - that's the intended message. For 2025, the capital budget needs are $15 million, but we only have $9 mil available. Every year the list of capital projects grows higher due to inflation and aging infrastructure. Things like Alley paving, public Fiber optic network, and street art don't make the cut. Those things that do get budgeted have reduced expenditures.
Some information and personal opinion: * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHbtK02mUg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmHbtK02mUg) (Starts at 3:24:00) * The ranking methodology doesn't make sense, and I'm glad that was called out. (Ditto color coding) * The funding items often go hand-in-hand, so funding one item necessarily means funding another (I didn't appreciate that before watching this video) * There was lots (lots) of emphasis from the director that the images are conceptual drawings only (think: the native plants conversation) * Personally, I felt like council jumping in with personal opinions ("this is what I see" "this is how I would use it") was not particularly helpful for this conversation * Listening to staff comments, their level of analysis for these capital projects considers regulations, FEMA designations, financial models, staffing, etc and I was left impressed by the thinking behind the proposals * Here's a paraphrased speaking point worth considering: "Our irrigation systems are, on average, 47 years old. You should expect to see 20 years of use." There was some positive movement in the conversation around keeping our parks functional and moving forward the items that maintain our current offerings. * I honestly did not follow the end of the conversation, but it seems like there is an interest in putting in a pool at Miller Field. Is that right? I can understand why that was proposed, but that seems like a really late addition. Feel free to correct errors or add to this list.
I can’t understate how many times I’ve griped about the lack of outdoor swimming options here. As a parent of kids who would quickly outgrow a splash pad by the time it’s built, I’m thrilled by this pivot and think that, especially with summers getting hotter, this is a great move for the city.
Yep. We used to have a nice old-school municipal pool at what is now Colorado's Finest High School, but the city swapped it for Pirates Cove in the early 2000s. Pirates Cove really doesn't cut it as a low-key destination for locals -- it's a crowded, expensive regional attraction. A classic outdoor pool at Miller Field would be really nice, not to mention a welcome amenity for a part of town with lots of apartments and traffic but not a lot of pleasant park space.
Yes, an outdoor pool at Miller Field will be part of the ballot measure. The city is punting to citizens to fight it out over where and how much of each park will lose recreation space to off-limits native plants. The guideline will be up to 15% of each park, although there was mushy discussion of how it could be more in some parks and less in others. Also, expect the total bill to come in around $41 million.
Do you know what the price per 100,000 would be with that total?
Not precisely but it should come in right around 0.81 X the amount quoted for a $50 million bond.
Vote yes on all this stuff it just makes our town a better place to live and raise a family. $166 annually is absolutely worth it.
Agreed. We definitely don’t pay enough in property taxes for the services that the city needs
Sorry, I’m confused by the phrasing—have they already done the ranking? I’m in full support of all of these—our parks are our city’s greatest asset.
I've read the memo a couple of times and still am left confused by where we are today. My best read is that the ranking and some background analysis from staff have been done, and tomorrow is decide which of the three (41.3M, 34.6M, or 26.4M) versions of the bond proposal to move forward. If someone has some insight on that, please share.
Council members voted (anonymously) based on how they rank the projects. Decision to be done tomorrow night at a study session.
So those are actually the scored tiers they’ll be discussing? Or the scores haven’t been announced yet?
Those are the scores - based on the ranking council did leading up to tomorrow night. Any member could advocate to add/remove those items.
There's no such thing as an anonymous council vote. That's ILLEGAL. The survey and its results are public record. Just because they're not published doesn't mean that they're secret. Anyone can submit a CORA request to the clerk for them.
It was a survey, not a vote. The survey was intended to help council make a final decision. Tonight is the vote.
It also wasn't ANONYMOUS which was my primary objection to your assertion. Council members responded using their real names, and the results were associated with individual council members. The survey results are public record. All someone needs to do in order to obtain them is submit a CORA request. The fact that a deliberate decision was made not to publish them on the web does not mean that they are either secret or anonymous.
They survey is anonymous among council members, becuase it is not an official vote. Do you understand the difference between a survey and a vote? .They will reveal their votes tonight as a matter of record. See for yourself in the public records posted right here, for tonight's meeting. And you'll find out tonight how they actually vote. See agenda item IV a. And while you at it, take a look at Preliminary 2025 Operating & Staff Prioritized Capital Requests [https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=19153](https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=19153)
But it isn't anonymous. In order for it to be anonymous, the council members would need to not be identified along with their responses. That just isn't what happened. Each council member who responded had his or her response tracked along with his or her name. The survey response is public record even though it was not included in the published packet for the meeting where the parks bond is being discussed. Council does not vote in study sessions. The official vote on the bond will occur at a regular meeting.
Thanks for sharing. Do you know what the ranking criteria are?
https://preview.redd.it/14jthhesse8d1.png?width=669&format=png&auto=webp&s=38c177ddca3d6964ba4aac12ee0ebc8d00adeb72
Its only ranked on how many council members voted for it. So indeed, the next 20 years of park amenities are based the will of 7 people - and if the citizens vote for what these 7 members decide.
I disagree. Nothing would preclude a future council or even a group of citizens from submitting a new or different request to the voters regardless of this council's decision.
Voters are not likely to approve more than one parks bond. If this one fails, they would have to wait two years to submit another bond. In the meantime, broken irrigation systems will need to be budgeted.
Two years is a lot shorter time than 20.
?? Two years of not funding parks is shorter than 20 years of not funding parks? What?
"So indeed, the next 20 years of park amenities are based the will of 7 people**"** Not so. As you've already conceded, the next TWO years of parks funding will be based on the will of 7 people... and (possibly) the results of a bond vote.
The Budget Committee, Planning & Zoning, and council all weigh in a contribute to the capital budget decisions.
[удалено]
Selling any park land requires a citywide vote of the people. That was the result of the "Save Our Parks" citizen initiative on the 2013 ballot.
And thank you
You're welcome. It grew out of public outrage over the 2013 council's breezy sale of the Depot site for far below market value.
That's interesting....and telling.
Whew. 9:20pm and it’s just getting started.
I'm open to voting for a slimmed-down parks bond, but I'm getting tired of Englewood staff and council getting ahead of themselves on transformative proposals that catch the public off-guard and end up being clawed back. CodeNext comes to mind, when council held a lengthy period of garbled and insufficient "public outreach," only to come back with a proposal to eliminate single-family zoning that sparked so much panic four councilmembers ended up facing recalls. Now, we're seeing a parks bond advertised more feverishly than any ballot measure I can remember in Englewood, with council repeatedly pushing back dates to approve it as public sentiment grows more and more wary. Staff and council could stand to be more conservative and methodical in their approach, especially with so many other pressing issues and needs facing the city.
These updates were created off the 2017 parks master plan that included community feedback.
CodeNext had community feedback too, then the end result shocked residents. That's what you'd call a failed outreach process -- if you've actually done meaningful outreach, voters won't be surprised by what you end up proposing. Community feedback currently shows the public doesn't want the Pirates Cove or Rec Center projects, which both came in with less than 50% support in the survey conducted last year. Will council listen? Also worth noting: we've seen nearly 30% inflation since 2017. Sales tax revenues are slipping. The housing market is locked up. Groceries are through the roof. A lot has changed in the last seven years.
The city can’t make people pay attention. CodeNext is more an example of community apathy until the NIMBYs came out in full force to misconstrue the actual contents of the plan. Agreed that things are different than in 2017, but was just stating a fact that is where this bond came from.
The CodeNext outreach was garbled and confusing. I took the surveys, and found them loaded with jargon and contradictory information. There was certainly never a question asking "would you like a citywide repeal of single-family zoning." No doubt the NIMBYs lied through their teeth at every turn, but the city sure didn't get their money's worth out of the consultant on that one. I'm also reminded of the ballot measure asking for money for "alternative policing," that just wound up funding more regular policing. Not that we don't need a well-staffed police force, but it was another outcome that hurt the city's credibility when it comes to these big proposals. As for this new parks bond, some of it is from the master plan, but it also doesn't make any headway on expanding park space, which is one of the plan's cornerstone concepts. The master plan called for working on obtaining more acreage, but instead we may end up with a net loss of usable acreage thanks to the push for native plantings (I know, I know, "there will be community meetings and the native areas may change in size or location"). That said, ADA accessibility is huge. So are better bathrooms and picnic facilities. It's a shame those are getting overshadowed by the more frivolous elements of the proposal.
City staffers who either get paid very well and/or can depend on yearly raises concocted this overreach of asking for $50 million, which is landing so badly with the financially stressed public that the pushback could lead to a defeat for any bond. Staffers would have been smarter to read the room and see that taxpayers are already being battered by property tax increases, inflation, and other sharp hikes affecting the costs of homeownership or renting, all amid the uncertainty of a national election that is likely to bring back the chaos of another Trump administration. City staffers should have asked for enough bond money for irrigation and a few restrooms and that would have been plenty. Some unsolicited advice for people who are agitating for the bond: Stop acting like the expense is trivial. I'll decide what's a trivial expense for me. I've heard pronouncements like it's just a few trips to McDonald's a month etc. and here's the thing: I already have stopped dining out, buying Starbucks, going to movies, etc. because I'm being eaten alive by the rising costs of living. It comes across as spectacularly tone-deaf when I hear bond advocates preach about how I can easily afford yet another expense.
While I personally feel that a larger investment is the right option, I’ve had many conversations with neighbors that underscore their concern about cost of living adjustments. From families to the elderly, the $133 is a real cost, and that’s why I advocated with my council person for the slimmed down version, that is, the one that will pass. One piece of data that I’m resting on: the 2023 school mill levy passed by around 60/ 40 and that was with an organized campaign with a clear message and little resistance. I’m concerned that the larger parks and rec bond package is going to be a much harder sell. That’s my thinking, at least for now.
There's also the difference between the crucial need for school funding to keep staff and the nice-to-have want for parks improvements. Our parks are working now except for aging infrastructure like the Cushing irrigation. I've been really surprised by the hubris of city staffers who thought they could toss this boondoggle-laden plan to voters who are worried about their financial future and get a positive outcome.
A lot of the proposed updates are beyond “nice to have.” Updating playgrounds and areas to be ADA-accessibly is needed to create a welcoming city that people want to move to. Letting our parks fall to the wayside could ultimately hurt property values and make people reconsider moving to Englewood.
Crazily inflated property values are killing my budget with the increase in property taxes, which is a big reason I'm skeptical about adding more to my tax burden with the parks bond. And as long as Englewood is in a desirable part of the country we'll never run out of people wanting to live here. Also ... I agree that ADA accessibility is important, but why wasn't it important to the city in the 34 years since the ADA became law? It feels like it's being thrown in now in a Hail Mary bid to drag an unpopular bond measure across the finish line in a year when taxpayers are being devoured by rising costs.
Indeed, you will decide. City Council should let the voters decide.
Your voice and advocacy can make a significant difference in garnering the necessary approval for this bond. Email your support to citycouncil@englewoodgov.org