May 5th, 2025, by Rebecca Powell | Fort Collins Coloradoan
A civic assembly formed to help determine the future of the former Hughes Stadium land in Fort Collins has landed on a vision that includes multiple uses, with an emphasis on providing space and opportunities for Indigenous groups.
The assembly wrapped up 30 hours of deliberation on its final day, May 4. The 20 delegates spent two different weekends getting information and building consensus to form their recommendations.
The final report will be formally presented to City Council during a work session May 27.
This summer, council is set to take action on the report. They could approve or reject any recommendation, and they could also refer any of them to the ballot.
All of the final recommendations required the support of a supermajority of the delegates, defined as 75%.
Here’s a look at what the final report recommends.
Civic assembly calls for multiuse site
The final report recommends a multiuse concept that could include a bike park, open spaces, a natural area and conservation/education features (this received 89% of the delegates’ votes).
The report calls for active restoration and rehabilitation of the site, rather than leaving it as-is (89% support).
A natural area on a portion of the land could restore natural habitat, and multiuse trails could connect to the nearby Maxwell and Pineridge natural areas (89% support).
Outdoor community spaces, like fields, pavilions and gardens, would allow for events, meetings and celebrations, like ceremonies, community theater and education (95% support). This area should have large amount of space and buffering around it, according to the report.
A multiuse center within the site could contain a wildlife rehabilitation facility, such as a hospital, plus an area for education/learning and Indigenous cultural representation (79% support). But any buildings should be clustered in one location, prioritizing areas where the land is most degraded, according to the recommendations.
An outdoor education facility could offer trails and interpretive signs on the history, native species and restoration of the land (89% support).
Finally, while a bike park was included in one recommendation, the report does not offer any further detail about it.
Did the civic assembly consider designating 100% of it as a natural area?
The delegates did consider whether or not 100% of the site should be designated as a natural area, which is what a petition effort is trying to put on a future ballot.
While the outcome of that vote hasn’t been made public, it did not receive the supermajority required.
On the other hand, designating a portion of the site for a natural area received 89% of the delegates’ votes.
Indigenous opportunities got big support
The civic assembly also recommended, with 100% support, providing opportunities for Indigenous groups to lease or permit space on the site.
The delegates suggest setting aside a portion of the site for cultural opportunities with an emphasis on Indigenous voices (79% support).
Or a portion of the site could be set aside for education about the historical and cultural practices of Indigenous people (89% support).
“The goal of this would be the preservation and continuation of the Indigenous cultural and historical practices,” the final report says, noting outreach to those groups will better inform site development.
Further, the assembly recommends that Indigenous groups be consulted throughout development of the site, regarding things like artifact collection, plant collection and land rehabilitation and stewardship (95% support).
Further consultation is suggested about the use and preservation of two cottonwood trees on the site that are highly valued. This might include relocating the 18th hole of the existing disc golf course (100% support).
Other concepts and elements in their recommendations include:
- Minimizing light pollution (100% support).
- Offering dog waste stations (89%).
- Not allowing off-leash dogs in any areas that are not designated dog parks (89%).
- Expanding transit to the area (84%), including bus service (79%).
- Focusing on accessibility (79%).
- Working with land use experts and planners, etc., to plan the optimal locations for site features (89%).
City staff advised the panel to focus on preferred uses, rather than on specific nonprofits or groups that made presentations.
How the civic assembly got here
The city collaborated on the project with Healthy Democracy, with help from The American Public Trust, CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation and Straayer Center for Public Service Leadership, and the Local Policy Lab.
The partners say the process helps depolarize and “turn down the heat” on tough issues, engages the silent majority and focuses on collaborative problem solving.
The City Council approved putting forward $150,000 for the process, citing “the variety of interest groups, complexity of the project, and potential for polarization in the community.”
The assembly is meant to be representative of the community and to act like a jury by deliberating at length, calling witnesses, and reaching high levels of consensus.
Its delegates consider neutrally prepared information in a deliberative way before making a final recommendation to city leadership.
Prior to the actual work of the delegates, a “democratic lottery” was held. Postcard invitations to become a delegate were randomly sent to 15,000 households. Interested residents responded. Then, an algorithm process identified thousands of potential panels that represent the unique demographic characteristics of the community. Finally, a lottery selected one of those panels to become the delegates.
“The result is like having the city in one room,” an FAQ provided by Healthy Democracy said.
Also ahead of the assembly weekends, a separate group of 22 volunteer “community guides” received training and conducted outreach with different groups of people and individuals.
The guides represented multiple groups in the city, including Native and BIPOC communities, cyclists, preservationists, wildlife rehabilitation groups, runners, youth activity groups, CSU students, environmental advocates, nonprofits, open space advocates, neighbors of the site, seniors and more, according to a report from CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation, which led the community guides effort.
In a little less than three weeks, they collected 267 surveys.
This feedback, along with other community engagement results and general information, was then shared with an “information committee,” which determined what “inputs” would be presented to the delegates themselves.
Then on April 12-13 and May 3-4, the delegates joined together to receive that information and deliberate.
During the meetings, delegates heard from presenters who proposed specific uses or offered insights on potential uses. They also met in small-group Q&A sessions with those presenters.
After the initial weekend, they were able to request specific additional information or to hear from more individuals or groups, including any of the same presentations they already heard.
Also in small groups, they discussed and synthesized the information they heard, shared insights and brought forth ideas.
Along the way, the delegates took votes to direct their next steps and to reach consensus. That included things like identifying unanswered questions, prioritizing ideas and finally determining which concepts, uses and elements they agreed upon.
In the end, any concept, major use or minor element that had 75% of support — either strong support or somewhat support — made it into a final recommendation.
Therefore, the final report is a reflection of the ideas with the most support.
This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Fort Collins civic assembly makes recommendations for old Hughes site
Read the full article here.
