Proposed Changes to Public Comment Procedures in Arvada

Members of Arvada Voices attended the public pre-city council meeting on September 23, 2025. This meeting took place in the third-floor conference room of City Hall. The 45-minute session covered various issues, including public recycling and community notifications about road closures. However, the main focus was on proposed changes to public comment procedures. These changes could fundamentally alter how citizens engage in bi-weekly City Council Business Meetings. The revisions would replace the current single comment period with multiple, more restrictive opportunities, drastically limiting public participation in city government.

Understanding the Proposed Changes

One of the changes under consideration would replace the current system of 3-minute public comments before the consent agenda. Instead, there would be three separate comment periods:

• The first speaking segment would restrict public comment to consent agenda items and resolutions only. This would take place after presentations, where all public comment currently occurs.

• The second segment would embed public hearing comments within lengthy agenda proceedings. This would be restricted to comments related to public hearings.

• The third segment would provide general public comment on items not on the agenda at the meeting's end, after all scheduled agenda items are concluded.

  
  

During the discussion, city staff acknowledged that "very few people comment about resolutions" during the existing three-minute period. By restricting the accessible early comment period to only these items, the changes would likely reduce opportunities for citizens to speak when meetings begin.

The meeting revealed that council members' motivations for the changes centered on getting "quick business" done faster. They also wanted to ensure "staff and developers" do not have to wait for their agenda items. One council member explicitly stated the concern that business applicants wanting permits were "staying here until 9 o'clock to finally be heard."

Current Disparities in Access

Under the existing system, developers, contractors, and other business interests receive guaranteed agenda time. This includes staff presentations, detailed project reviews, and opportunities for rebuttal during public hearings. In contrast, citizens addressing community concerns such as traffic safety, budget priorities, or service issues receive only brief comment periods. These periods come with strict time limits and no opportunity for dialogue.

The proposed changes would maintain business applicants' dedicated hearing time early in meetings while moving citizens to the end of the meeting. This creates practical challenges for working families, parents with childcare needs, and others who cannot stay for meetings that can extend past 11:30 PM and sometimes continue until 3 AM.

As one council member noted while discussing these priorities, the changes reflect a belief among some council members that "business should take precedence." However, that same member offered a different perspective, stating, "I think everybody who addresses the council is talking about business. It may not be a business item that night. But they're not here for fun. They're here talking about something that's important to them, and that's the function of government."

Impact on Public Participation

Research shows that when cities limit general public comment to the end of meetings, participation typically drops. Citizens face several practical barriers, including unpredictable timing that can extend meetings well past midnight. There are also childcare conflicts when parents cannot arrange care for indefinite meeting lengths, work schedule conflicts for evening shift workers, and transportation barriers related to late-night public transit and parking availability.

These proposed restrictions could add to existing barriers created earlier this year when the City Council eliminated remote access for public comment. While this remote access costs $140,000-$160,000 annually, the amount represents significantly less than other council-approved investments. These include the $123 million water and wastewater bonds, the $8 million affordable housing bond, or the Early College of Arvada purchase at $6.35 million.

Restrictions on Group Participation

The proposed bylaws may further limit citizen engagement by formalizing existing informal practices that restrict how citizen groups organize their comments during public hearings. Currently, community groups can request consolidated time for a single spokesperson rather than having multiple brief individual comments. The proposed bylaws could codify restrictions on this practice. This may require advanced coordination with city staff, formal approval processes, and limitations on total time allocation.

One council member specifically noted the need to prevent situations where groups "all say they're a leader and they all get extra time." These types of restrictions do not currently exist for business applicants, who routinely receive extended presentation time and professional representation.

What Was and Wasn't Discussed

The September 23rd meeting included extensive discussion of accommodating business applicants and staff schedules. It also focused on streamlining consent agenda processing, controlling meeting length and efficiency, and comparing practices in other cities with similar restrictions. However, the discussion did not include analysis of how changes would impact working families. There was also no consideration of accessibility for elderly or disabled residents, nor was there an examination of how public engagement affects democratic governance.

Multiple council members acknowledged they had given limited consideration to the public impact of specific restrictions. When asked about proposed limits to time allotted for public comment, one responded: "I'll be honest, I haven't given much thought to that one."

Comparative Context

Council plans to research other municipalities' approaches to public comment. The discussion will focus on cities that have implemented various restrictions. For example, Denver requires advance registration by Thursday for Monday meetings. It employs strict time limits with limited exceptions and uses first-come, first-served systems. Aurora was cited as an example of a city that recently restricted public comment because officials "didn't want to hear it."

Cities with more accessible public comment systems demonstrate different outcomes. These include higher voter turnout in local elections, policy outcomes that better reflect community needs, increased trust in local government, and more diverse participation across demographic groups.

Alternative Approaches

Council could pursue approaches that increase rather than restrict participation. This could include maintaining general public comment early in meetings when more people can attend. They could also restore remote access for those unable to attend in person, create predictable timing so citizens can plan participation, and designate certain evenings for focused discussion on specific community issues. Treating citizen input as a valuable component of governance is essential.

As one council member noted in opposition to the proposed changes: "I always come down on the default that the more we talk to the public, the better. The more access the public has to us, the better."

Next Steps and Timeline

While City Council initially proposed creating a vote on the bylaws by October 21st, comments from one member and subsequent discussion resulted in scheduling a study session before any vote. This delay likely pushes the decision past the upcoming election. Council Member John Marriott will leave the council, and two to three new council members will join.

This extended timeline provides an opportunity for additional public input and discussion before any final decisions are made. Citizens interested in these procedural changes can contact council members with their perspectives. They can also attend the upcoming study session where proposals will be discussed in detail. Providing input on how these changes might affect their ability to participate in city government is crucial.

The Broader Context

These potential changes represent a significant shift in how Arvada handles public participation in city government. The proposed framework could create multiple procedural steps for citizen engagement while maintaining existing streamlined access for business interests. Citizens currently receive brief comment periods with strict time limits. The proposed changes could add additional timing and procedural restrictions to this participation, making the process more confusing and discouraging.

The ultimate question for Arvada residents is how these changes align with their expectations for accessible democratic governance and citizen participation in local government decisions.

What are your thoughts on potential changes to public comment? Comment below!