RVC Candidate Forum Showcases Shared Values and Diverging Visions for Arvada’s Future

Six candidates vying for Arvada City Council seats found common ground on transparency and citizen engagement while revealing sharp differences on growth and density during a forum hosted by the Ralston Valley Coalition (RVC) on September 29th.

Founded in 2021, RVC is a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the natural resources, quality of life, and community values of the Ralston Valley and greater Arvada. Through collaboration, advocacy, and education, RVC works to ensure responsible development and sustainable growth in West Arvada.

The forum, held at the Depot at Five Parks, gave residents the chance to hear directly from the candidates on issues ranging from traffic and housing density to environmental protections, economic resilience, and public engagement. Attendees also connected with neighbors and explored local projects at community tables during the Meet & Greet. With participants both online and in person, the 2-hour forum underscored the importance of citizen involvement in shaping Arvada’s future.

The Candidates

During their two-minute opening statements, candidates outlined their backgrounds and motivations for running.

Eric Bodenstab (District 1), an engineer who previously ran for Jefferson County Commissioner, said his technical training enables him to weigh projects from both social and technical perspectives. Stressing that “no one enters politics to enrich developers,” he said his goal is to establish fair rules that protect today’s residents while ensuring Arvada thrives for the next 50 to 100 years.

Randy Moorman (District 1, Incumbent) reflected on 14 years in Arvada with his husband, Scott, sharing stories of community and neighbor support during personal challenges, including when they fostered children and when Scott suffered a stroke. He pointed to accomplishments from his first term — safer streets, reduced fire hazards, and pothole repair — and pledged to continue focusing on road improvements, multimodal transportation, accessibility, and affordable housing.

Rebecka Lovisone (District 3) admitted she doesn’t have all the answers but emphasized her candidacy is rooted in core values of bravery, growth, and reliability. She promised to prioritize listening and follow-through, explaining that “true representation requires engaging directly with residents” through door-knocking, forums, and everyday conversations.

Aaron Skoff (District 3), a lifelong Arvada resident raising his 14-year-old daughter in Olde Town, described himself as having an “old school” perspective shaped by growing up locally. He said his deep love for the community informs his priorities, identifying homelessness in Olde Town as his top concern while acknowledging that “infrastructure, growth, and maintaining Arvada’s character” are also pressing citywide issues.

Denise Vargas (At-Large), a Colorado native and clinical psychologist, pointed to her 11 years in Arvada and 15 years working in corrections with people facing serious mental health challenges. Those experiences, she said, taught her to listen, problem-solve, and build bridges between perspectives. She centered her campaign on the “three C’s” — Connection, Conversation, and Community.

Michael Griffith (At-Large) explained his motivation with a reminder: “If you don’t take an interest in your government, they’re sure to take an interest in you.” Since moving to Arvada in 2014, he has watched growth outpace infrastructure. Drawing on his background in engineering and design — including contributions to the city’s transportation plan — Griffith underscored the importance of community input in shaping long-term solutions.

With introductions complete, moderators turned to the evening’s first major topic, traffic and infrastructure — something that touches every Arvada resident’s daily life.

Addressing Traffic and Infrastructure Challenges

Traffic congestion and aging infrastructure emerged as dominant themes, with candidates agreeing that growth has outpaced Arvada’s ability to maintain safe and efficient roads.

Michael Griffith drew on his Planning Commission experience to propose upgrading outdated traffic signals to synchronized “smart” systems and introducing stronger neighborhood traffic-calming measures. He also stressed the need for better emergency planning, calling for secondary egress routes, and added that earlier release of council packets would give both officials and residents more time to engage on critical projects.

Randy Moorman emphasized investments in multimodal transportation, sidewalks, and accessibility, framing the upcoming comprehensive plan update as a chance to align transportation priorities with long-term needs. “Success will require collaboration with regional partners like CDOT,” he said.

Rebecka Lovisone connected the issue to her own lived experience. “I live on Oak Street, and the sidewalk is barely wide enough for a stroller,” she explained, describing how overgrown hedges and narrow walkways make everyday trips unsafe. She argued that pedestrian and bike infrastructure would allow residents to “work, live, and play in the same place without depending on cars.”

Aaron Skoff approached the issue from a fiscal perspective, criticizing temporary fixes like rubber speed bumps as wasteful. His mantra — “watch the pennies and the dollars will follow” — reflected his call for careful, lasting infrastructure investments.

Denise Vargas acknowledged that large projects like bridge widening are costly but unavoidable. She emphasized that collaboration with regional partners will be essential to ease traffic bottlenecks while balancing growth with safety for all road users.

Eric Bodenstab urged the city to anticipate how emerging technologies will reshape transportation needs. “Why would you park at the airport when you could just send your autonomous car home?” he asked, arguing that planning must account for the transformative shifts already on the horizon.

The candidates highlighted a mix of immediate solutions and long-term strategies — from fiscal discipline to technological foresight — underscoring that infrastructure will remain one of Arvada’s most pressing challenges.

Balancing High-Density Development and Community Needs

When the conversation turned to housing density, candidates’ differences came into sharp focus.

Randy Moorman strongly defended Arvada’s lawsuit against state housing laws HB 1313 and HB 1304 (which limit local public hearings and push higher-density requirements), arguing that these measures strip residents of their right to weigh in on development. He argued the House Bills are “taking away our residents’ right to have a voice… that is part of our democracy.”

Eric Bodenstab echoed concerns about overdevelopment, warning that “with too much density, it’s going to be difficult to maintain the quality of life that we enjoy.”

Rebecka Lovisone acknowledged the need for affordable housing but opposed placing high-rises in single-family neighborhoods without community buy-in. She advocated concentrating density near transit corridors with strong walkability.

Aaron Skoff painted a vivid picture of Olde Town as “built out on every scrap we can find.” He acknowledged that gentrification is inevitable but urged “sensible choices” to preserve neighborhood character.

Denise Vargas sought a middle ground, saying, “I like my space. I like my wonderful comfortable walks,” while stressing that growth should not sacrifice quality of life.

Michael Griffith criticized state mandates as “government overreach” and proposed giving neighborhood groups a formal role in the comprehensive planning process through what he called a “group of groups” model.

Though the candidates differed in how they would manage density, the discussion made clear that the future of Arvada’s neighborhoods will hinge on balancing growth with livability — ensuring new housing meets demand without eroding the character and quality of life residents value.

Comprehensive Planning for Arvada’s Future

From housing, the discussion shifted naturally to how Arvada should approach long-term planning and ensure residents have a genuine voice in shaping the city’s future. All six candidates agreed that revising the city’s comprehensive plan is one of the most important opportunities for public participation in years, though they offered different visions for how to make that happen.

Michael Griffith proposed a structured system, suggesting that leaders from neighborhood associations and civic groups form a coordinated body to provide input before proposals advance. He pointed to his citywide transportation surveys — which drew over 1,000 responses — as proof that broad feedback is both achievable and valuable.

Denise Vargas cited San Diego’s model of resident-led planning groups that review development proposals before they reach the commission. She stressed that such groups increase accountability and transparency, and clarified that proposals to restrict public comment came from staff, not council — underscoring that she would expand engagement, not limit it.

Rebecka Lovisone emphasized meeting residents where they are, whether through coffee meetups, online polls, or door-to-door conversations. “Engaging the community is a two-way street,” she said, adding that trust is built when residents see genuine follow-through.

Aaron Skoff sharply criticized any attempt to restrict participation, singling out proposals to move public comment to the end of meetings. “The voices of this community are what this community is. This is a body of seven, not a body of 124,000,” he declared, emphasizing that meaningful democracy depends on open public engagement.

Randy Moorman endorsed neighborhood-level planning groups as a practical way to amplify resident voices. “More public engagement is better, and that’s how we make better decisions,” he said, noting such groups could balance citywide goals with neighborhood needs.

Eric Bodenstab suggested going further with citizens’ assemblies — randomly selected groups who deliberate deeply on land-use issues. In other cities, he explained, these assemblies produce recommendations that councils find hard to ignore, giving residents a stronger hand in shaping policy.

Together, these perspectives showed broad agreement that public input must remain central to Arvada’s future — but also revealed clear differences in how each candidate envisions giving citizens that seat at the table.

Environmental and Public Health Protections

All six candidates supported stricter cleanup standards at contaminated sites, particularly near schools and residential neighborhoods. The candidates shared a conviction that environmental health is not just a policy detail, but a matter of protecting families and future generations.

Aaron Skoff drew from personal history, recalling what it was like growing up near Rocky Flats — a former nuclear weapons plant, now a wildlife refuge near Arvada, with lingering contamination concerns. That experience, he said, left him with a lasting awareness of how contamination can shadow a community for decades. “I want the same standards for my neighbors and for my family as you want for you and yours,” he insisted.

Denise Vargas made the issue deeply personal by pointing to her own children, who attend Sierra Elementary near potential contamination sites. She underscored that health and safety are “non-negotiable priorities” and called for vigilance in protecting children from unseen risks.

Rebecka Lovisone contrasted her childhood memories of freely playing in local creeks with the current reality of contamination concerns around Ralston Creek. “We are borrowing the future from our children,” she said, warning that failing to act today leaves the next generation to pay the price.

Randy Moorman broadened the scope by urging the city to include air pollution in its environmental reviews, particularly as the region struggles to meet federal air quality standards.

Michael Griffith pointed to a recent storage project near a former landfill where residents flagged environmental risks that were initially overlooked, saying this showed why citizen input is essential to catching problems early.

Eric Bodenstab acknowledged that cleanup is expensive but argued that public health must also include traffic safety and water security.

The remarks underscored a rare point of consensus: Arvada must hold itself to higher environmental standards and view public health as an investment in the city’s future.

Compatible Development and Community Identity

As Arvada continues to grow, the question of what makes new development “compatible” with existing neighborhoods sparked thoughtful debate.

Aaron Skoff framed compatibility as a balance between heritage and progress, warning that North Denver scrape-offs — where modest homes are replaced by oversized modern builds — can erode neighborhood character.

Rebecka Lovisone offered concrete examples: storage units built next to single-family homes as a case of “functional incompatibility” and tall modern houses overshadowing one-story brick homes as “aesthetic incompatibility.”

Michael Griffith distinguished between “macro” compatibility, which aligns housing supply with the job market, and “micro” compatibility, which considers how density and design affect quality of life.

Randy Moorman emphasized that compatibility should be guided by residents’ values rather than top-down definitions, citing his opposition to weakening open space protections.

Denise Vargas focused on everyday impacts like traffic and pollution, noting that what feels compatible to one resident may feel disruptive to another.

Eric Bodenstab questioned whether some uses belong in residential neighborhoods at all, voicing skepticism about mixing retail into purely residential areas and opposing hotels in suburban mixed-use zones.

The candidates’ comments revealed that while “compatibility” is not easily defined, it remains central to preserving the qualities that make Arvada’s neighborhoods distinctive.

Navigating Emerging Technologies and Economic Resilience

The forum closed issue discussions with a look at technology and resilience.

Rebecka Lovisone framed artificial intelligence (AI) as an opportunity for small businesses to cut costs and free entrepreneurs to “spend time doing what they love and being with the people they love.”

Michael Griffith stressed that what makes Arvada’s small businesses unique is “that special thing” technology cannot replicate — community authenticity.

Denise Vargas encouraged leaning into industries centered on human connection, arguing that while AI can mimic therapy sessions, it can never replace real empathy.

Aaron Skoff admitted uncertainty about AI but underscored the importance of supporting local businesses: “We’re going to keep moving forward with supporting our businesses, shopping here, playing here, eating here.”

Randy Moorman connected resilience to both economics and infrastructure, citing research that communities rooted in uniqueness weather downturns better and proposing solar-powered microgrids to keep neighborhoods running during outages.

Eric Bodenstab offered cautious optimism: “The human element’s never gone. There’s always going to be a human check on just about every decision.”

The answers reflected both caution and optimism — recognizing that while technology will reshape daily life and local economies, Arvada’s resilience lies in preserving its community character, fostering human connection, and planning for innovation without losing sight of its values.

Lightning Round: Shared Values on Transparency and Participation

The forum concluded with a rapid-fire lightning round that revealed remarkable consensus. Every candidate answered “yes” to each question, signaling shared values around transparency, citizen participation, and local control.

• Psilocybin Business Regulations: Limits on time, place, and manner, including setbacks from residences and operational restrictions.

• Virtual Participation: Restoring online access to city council and planning commission meetings.

• Consent Agenda Reform: Allowing citizens to move consent agenda items (routine approvals) to regular hearings, as Jefferson County allows.

• Parks and Open Space Protections: Expanding voter protections to all open space-zoned lands (Griffith noted this would require a charter amendment).

• Extended Public Comment: Considering an increase from three to five minutes.

• Citizen Rebuttal Time: Allowing rebuttals during hearings (Moorman noted he already asked staff to formalize this step).

• Viewable Redlines: Requiring redlined documents be displayed during hearings.

• Infill Development Designation: Creating a new code category specifically for infill projects.

• Drone Delivery Regulations: Regulating drone landing sites, especially in residential areas and parks.

Despite differences on broader policy issues, the lightning round underscored a shared foundation: empowering residents, expanding transparency, and safeguarding Arvada’s quality of life.

Closing Remarks: A Vision for Arvada

In their final statements, the six candidates left voters with a distilled sense of their priorities and leadership styles.

• Michael Griffith (At-Large) returned to urgency, warning that decisions made today will shape Arvada for decades: “We’re at 125,000 residents with resources for 140,000. What we build now matters for the next 50 years.”

• Denise Vargas (At-Large) highlighted her role as a bridge-builder, pledging to lead with empathy and her “three C’s” of connection, conversation, and community.

• Aaron Skoff (District 3) framed himself as a lifelong neighbor rather than a politician, grounding his campaign in authenticity and everyday experience.

• Rebecka Lovisone (District 3) emphasized inclusivity, promising to create safe spaces for all voices and ensure residents feel represented across differences.

• Randy Moorman (District 1, Incumbent) pointed to his record of service and summed up his approach with a guiding principle: “Do all the good you can in all the places you can.”

• Eric Bodenstab (District 1) reminded voters that the race is nonpartisan, urging residents to see themselves as part of “team Arvada” above party labels.

RVC closed the evening by comparing infill development to “a puzzle” — one that requires ongoing community input, thoughtful planning, and the cooperation of many hands to fit the pieces together.

What’s Next for Arvada?

The RVC Candidate Forum highlighted both the challenges and opportunities facing Arvada. From traffic congestion and housing density to public health, economic resilience, and the future of community engagement, the evening underscored that the city is at a pivotal moment.

While candidates differed on strategies, their agreement on transparency, participation, and accountability revealed a shared commitment to service. The unanimous lightning-round votes showed that despite political differences, Arvada’s future leaders are aligned on empowering residents.

As the forum made clear, the path forward depends not just on who is elected, but on how actively residents choose to engage. With Election Day approaching on November 4, 2025, the responsibility now shifts to voters. By weighing priorities, engaging with candidates, and turning out to vote, Arvadans can ensure their city remains guided by values of transparency, connection, and accountability.

The choices made today will shape not just the next four years, but the next fifty — and as the forum showed, Arvadans are ready to make them together, despite their differences.

Learn More About the Candidates

Learn More about RVC

https://ralstonvalleycoalition.org/

There are so many ways to support the RVC mission. Contact them at ralstonvalleycoalition@gmail.com to find out more about volunteer opportunities, fundraising events, joining the Coalition, donating to the RVC Community Protection Fund and ways to get your Homeowner's Association involved.

Vote this November!

Election Day: November 4, 2025

https://www.arvadaco.gov/281/2025-Election