Parks, Psilocybin, and Public Money: Recap of the August 19th Arvada City Council Meeting

The Arvada City Council convened for a lengthy session on August 19, 2025, addressing two major items that drew significant public interest: a comprehensive package of 67 Land Development Code amendments and a controversial $1.624 million funding advance to the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities.

Land Development Code Amendments Draw Scrutiny

The evening's most contentious item was CB25-019, an ordinance amending various provisions of Arvada's Land Development Code. The package included 67 different changes covering everything from technical corrections to compliance with new state legislation on natural medicine regulations.

Public Concerns Over Parks and Open Space

The proposed amendments to the Parks and Open Space zoning district sparked the most vocal opposition from residents. Gina Hallisey, speaking on behalf of the Ralston Valley Coalition, emerged as a key voice for protecting Arvada's open spaces.

Hallisey warned council members about maintaining public trust, noting that residents view every decision through the lens of who it benefits. "Does it benefit your constituents, or does it help developers?" she asked, while sporting the coalition's signature green shirt as a show of solidarity.

The original proposal would have added "public facilities" language to the open space district purpose, with an initial draft including hospitals in the permitted uses. Public opposition was swift and vocal, with several speakers expressing concern about vague language that could open the door to unwanted development in cherished open spaces.

Natural Medicine Regulations Create Controversy

Mike Rawluk, a Golden resident who frequently addresses Arvada's council on behalf of Ralston Valley Coalition, raised detailed concerns about the natural medicine provisions required by state law. Unlike marijuana legalization, which allowed cities to opt out, Proposition 122's psilocybin regulations mandate that municipalities accommodate these facilities while only allowing regulation of "time, place, and manner."

Rawluk advocated for stricter local controls, including 1,000-foot setbacks from residences, secure waste disposal requirements, and restrictions on operating hours. "Who needs treatment at midnight? Really, that would be partying," he observed, highlighting concerns about proper oversight of these facilities.

Director Discretion and Call-Up Process Debated

Multiple speakers criticized proposed amendments that would expand the Community Development Director's discretionary authority. Mike Schweitzer requested that the council postpone the vote entirely, calling a blanket approval of 67 amendments "irresponsible."

Rich Bowling raised fundamental questions about governance, noting that the director is mentioned 466 times in the Land Development Code compared to just 127 mentions of the city council. "He's an unelected official," Bowling emphasized, questioning why more power should be delegated away from elected representatives.

The discussion highlighted Arvada's "call-up" provision, which allows any council member to bring a director's decision before the full council for review within 17 days. Mayor Lauren Simpson defended this balance, explaining the practical challenges of requiring council approval for routine matters.

"We have seen some hearings that have had to come before us because the director does not have discretion for common sense changes," Simpson explained. "We were discussing a hearing we had a little over a year ago about somebody needing to change the location of a fence, which triggered a major modification. The poor gentleman had to spend like a year coming through an appeals process to get to us, and he literally had it approved inside of five minutes."

Simpson emphasized that the call-up provision serves as a crucial safeguard: "I think the call-up is one of the best things we've done here, even though we've never had to formally use it. The ability to have it seems appropriate."

However, the call-up process itself came under scrutiny during public comment. Mike Rawluk, who returned to speak after the Land Development Code vote, challenged the effectiveness of the much-praised mechanism. He described how the Ralston Valley Coalition attempted to use the call-up process regarding a trail easement that was vacated in 2023 near Wildflower Ponds.

Rawluk's concerns extended beyond process to substance, noting that public easements are supposed to require published notice under the Land Development Code, but "we never saw that happen. We found out through the grapevine this easement was going to go away."

The exchange highlighted tensions between administrative efficiency and public accountability, with questions remaining about whether the call-up process provides meaningful citizen oversight or merely creates an illusion of democratic control over technical decisions.

Council Responds with Amendments

Recognizing the valid concerns raised by residents, the council made several key changes to the ordinance before approval:

1. Parks and Open Space Protection: The controversial hospital language was struck from the open space district purpose statement, reverting to the original, more restrictive language that focuses on parks, recreation, and nature preservation.

2. Technical Corrections: Staff identified and corrected errors dating back to a 2022 ordinance, including fixing duplicate definitions and truck trip thresholds.

3. Future Natural Medicine Discussion: Council members, led by John Marriott, committed to bringing natural medicine regulations back for more comprehensive community discussion rather than rushing implementation.

Council Member Marriott stated, "I think the state was completely reckless in their adoption of psychoactive mushrooms. I think it was intentional to not allow communities to not allow it, unlike the marijuana thing where we were allowed to not allow it."

Arvada Center Funding Sparks Debate

The council also approved a contentious $1.624 million advance to the Arvada Center, passing by a narrow 4-2 margin with Council Members Fifer and Marriott dissenting.

The funding represents one year's worth of the city's typical contribution, advanced to address the center's current operational challenges. The money will be disbursed in two installments, with the second half contingent on the center working with a consultant to address financial sustainability.

Council Member Marriott explained his opposition:

Supporters emphasized the center's cultural value and 50-year history as a voter-approved community asset. Mayor Pro Tem Moorman noted the center's role as "the largest regional theater in our area outside of Denver" and highlighted its youth arts education programs serving the Rocky Mountain region.

The debate reflected broader tensions about fiscal responsibility versus supporting community amenities that enhance quality of life but require ongoing public investment.

Looking Forward

The evening demonstrated the challenges facing municipalities as they balance state mandates, community desires, and fiscal realities. The council's willingness to amend the Land Development Code based on public input and commit to future discussions on complex issues like natural medicine regulations shows responsive governance in action.

However, Mike Rawluk's experience with the call-up process exposes a troubling gap between rhetoric and reality. While city leaders praise this oversight mechanism, Rawluk's account suggests it may be more procedural theater than genuine accountability when residents actually try to use it. His unanswered emails about trail easements and missed notification requirements point to deeper issues with transparency and public engagement.

Questions remain about long-term sustainability of cultural institutions, appropriate levels of administrative discretion, and the protection of cherished community assets like parks and open spaces amid development pressures. For residents, the key takeaway is clear: showing up matters, but staying engaged matters more. The council committed to revisiting natural medicine regulations with more community input—that's a promise worth monitoring. And if the call-up process truly isn't working as intended, that's a governance failure that demands attention.

The meeting proved that Arvada's citizens are committed to sustained civic engagement, with residents showing up to voice concerns and hold their elected officials accountable for decisions that shape their community's character and future. Will the city government match its commitment to genuine transparency and accountability, or will public participation remain a cherished ideal that gets lost in practice?

The Land Development Code amendments passed 6-0 as amended, while the Arvada Center funding advance passed 4-2, with Council Member Ambrose absent from both votes.