Rebecca Powell, Fort Collins Coloradoan | Published 5:01 a.m. MT July 23rd, 2024 | Updated 7:54 p.m. MT Aug. 20, 2024
UPDATE: Fort Collins City Council voted 3-2 on Tuesday, Aug. 20 to use a “civic assembly” process to help determine what the former Hughes Stadium land should be used for.
Council member Kelly Ohlson and Susan Gutowsky voted no, as they did for the first vote in July. Council members Julie Pignataro, Tricia Canonico and Emily Francis voted yes. Mayor Jeni Arndt and council member Melanie Potyondy were absent. Both voted yes on first vote in July.
ORIGINAL STORY: The future of the former Hughes Stadium land in west Fort Collins has yet to be decided, and to find out what the community wants it to be, the city wants to try something new.
If City Council gives final OK to funding next month, public engagement will include a “civic assembly” process conducted by a third party.
The idea is being proposed “because of the variety of interest groups, complexity of the project, and potential for polarization in the community,” according to a presentation to City Council on July 16. “This will also be a learning opportunity to see how the community responds to this new model of local democracy.”
Here’s how it would work, according to a presentation City Council heard at their meeting:
- Members of the community are invited to potentially serve on a panel that will hear from stakeholders and the community about what they’d like to see on the site.
- Panel members are chosen through stratified random sampling to create a group that is representative of the community when it comes to things like age, gender, income, geography and political views.
- Participants are paid a stipend for their time and can get help overcoming needs like child care, food and transportation.
- The assembly hears from all viewpoints, is professionally facilitated and is given time to deliberate. The assembly meets over a period of weeks, such as on select weekends or evenings.
- The assembly makes recommendations to City Council, based on a supermajority vote of 70%.
- City Council ultimately makes the final determinations for the site.
Traditional public engagement efforts would take place concurrently.
City Council voted 4-2 to go ahead with funding the civic assembly process but will have to confirm that vote next month before moving forward. The city would provide $150,000 to Healthy Democracy Fund, which would convene the assembly. One of the city’s partners on the project is working on obtaining more funds.
The civic assembly would happen in 2025.
The city and Healthy Democracy Fund are collaborating on the project with The American Public Trust, CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation and Straayer Center for Public Service Leadership, and the Local Policy Lab.
Representatives of Healthy Democracy Fund and The American Public Trust told council the process helps depolarize and “turn down the heat” on tough issues, engages the silent majority and focuses on collaborative problem solving.
They said it leads to the involvement of residents who don’t typically participate in government process, guarantees demographic representation and reduces barriers to participation by providing compensation.
Council members Susan Gutowsky and Kelly Ohlson voted against funding the civic assembly.
Gutowsky said public engagement on Hughes has gone all the way back to 2017, and she believes the taxpayers have already been clear about what they want: low-impact uses like sledding and disc golf; a natural area that protects wildlife habitats, migration patterns and dark skies; and place to be at peace.
“I don’t believe we need a civic assembly process and we don’t need to spend upwards of $200,000 to answer the question that has already been answered: what to do with Hughes,” she said. “The answer is in the initiative.”
The ballot language stipulates that the land be used as “parks, recreation, and open lands, natural areas, and wildlife rescue and restoration.”
Council member Melanie Potyondy said the ballot language was broad and she has heard as many viewpoints on what to do with Hughes as were listed in the ballot language. She said if what Gutowsky described is truly the vision taxpayers have, then it will be reflected in the civic assembly process because it will be a representative sample.
“In the end, we’re still going to be deciding the plan,” she said, and the assembly is another data source for council to consider.
“One of the best ways to get folks into the room whose voices usually aren’t heard is to make it financially feasible and provide child care, and we typically haven’t done that in the past,” Potyondy said.
What has already been suggested for the former Hughes Stadium Site?
Results of a survey the city initiated in early 2023 identified the following as desired uses for the site. It’s not a complete list:
- Bike park
- Open and natural space
- Mixed-use recreation space
- Multiuse connected trails
- Indigenous community gathering areas or land returned to Indigenous peoples
- Disc golf
- Protected view of the foothills
- Wildlife rehabilitation and nature center
- Cross-country course
- Land restoration/improve local ecology/nature preservation
- Do nothing/leave as-is
- Off-leash dog park
- Sledding hill
- Outdoor opportunities for marginalized communities
- Stargazing
- Community gathering space
- Pickleball courts
- Community garden
- Pool
Bike park feasibility study gets OK
Whether the former Hughes Stadium site will include a bike park is not a foregone conclusion.
At the same meeting, council approved $70,000 in funding for a feasibility study related to a potential bike park in the city.
The study will look into potential locations, costs, amenities and features, and community engagement.
The two teams working separately on the Hughes Stadium outreach and the bike park study will still work closely to merge the discussions, said Ginny Sawyer, city project and policy manager.
Read the full article here.
