At its biweekly meeting, the Finance and Business Committee of the Denver City Council voted 6–1 to send five proposed ballot questions that would authorize about $935 million in bond spending to the full City Council for consideration.

The package, branded “Vibrant Denver” by city staff, would place questions on the ballot for transportation and mobility; parks and recreation; health and human services; city facilities; and housing and shelter, plus a companion ordinance that would name individual projects. Patrick Riley, the Vibrant Denver bond program manager, told the committee: "we are effectively asking, to authorize 5 ballot questions to be referred to the ballot, in November." The committee approved the referral in a roll-call vote after a motion by Councilman Darren Watson and a second by Council President Adam Sandoval; Councilmember Kamisha Hines recorded the lone no vote.

Why it matters: city staff and presenters emphasized the package responds to long-standing deferred-maintenance needs, aims to preserve existing facilities and positions the city to apply for future federal grants. Staff said the bond would use existing debt capacity so it would not require a new tax. Nicole Doheny, the city’s chief financial officer, and Patrick Riley outlined an economic case the administration presented to the committee: staff estimate that a $935 million investment would generate roughly $1.68 billion in total economic activity and create new, prevailing-wage jobs, and they stressed that construction costs rise year to year — a point staff framed as urgency for acting now.

The proposed spending is divided by area: transportation and mobility about $427.92 million; parks and recreation about $175.25 million; city facilities about $237.43 million; housing and shelter about $64.00 million; and health and human services about $30.10 million. Staff said those figures include contingencies and administrative costs now allocated to each project bucket.

Committee discussion and key points
- Project detail and naming: Staff said they expanded the companion ordinance to “name every single project” after community feedback. Riley said the bond process produced "over 7,600 community touch points that led to 1,100 project ideas," which were culled into 59 mayoral recommendations and the current legislative package.

- Selected projects and local requests: Council members pressed for specific district projects to be included or clarified. Staff said they added $15 million for Evans Avenue improvements after Councilman Paul Cashman flagged the need. Parks additions included Echo Lake Lodge, Platte Park and a Montbello playground (La Placita), and a Southeast recreation hub and skate park the presenters said will create a path forward for a recreation center in District 4.

- Housing changes and process questions: Members asked about a housing line that city staff reworded from “middle income” to “affordable housing.” Evan Dreyer of the mayor’s office said the change was intended to provide flexibility and that the city plans to use an RFI to create a pool of qualified developers for city-owned sites. Adam White, deputy director for housing at HOST, said eligibility and income targeting would be determined on a site-by-site basis and that projects using low-income housing tax credits would already qualify for certain tax exemptions.

- Cultural and facilities funding: Councilwoman Stacy Gilmore asked that $15 million be added to reach $20 million for an American Indian Cultural Embassy; staff said the project had been priced at $30 million when land purchase was assumed but would be about $20 million if the city-owned site is used, and that increasing the amount would be an amendment. Committee members debated how the bond should balance deferred maintenance of cultural institutions (examples cited included Red Rocks and performing-arts facilities) versus building new or expanded cultural facilities.

- Major transportation items and bridges: Several council members questioned an $89 million Eighth Avenue viaduct project and noted complex dependencies. Cindy Patty of DOTI said work on Eighth is important to relieve traffic and that Sixth and Eighth require long-term planning and likely a capital stack of local and federal funds. Members repeatedly raised concerns about shovel-ready status for a $70 million project on the list and sought clearer evidence of readiness and utility before committing funds.

- ADA and DOJ compliance: Staff answered questions about Americans with Disabilities Act work and a Department of Justice settlement. Patrick Riley said projects must either be made fully ADA-compliant or spend 20% of project budgets on accessibility work as required by city code; staff said the bond would be used to continue work on outstanding DOJ items but did not provide a citywide percent-complete figure during the meeting.

- Fiscal and timetable concerns: Council President Adam Sandoval warned that legal challenges to ballot language could compress the calendar and said he would use procedural waivers if necessary to keep deadlines. Staff proposed a legislative path that would send the referral to full City Council for first reading on July 28, with a courtesy public hearing and a second reading on August 4 if the schedule holds. Several members asked the administration to provide additional analysis on maximum responsible bond sizing and on the city’s capacity to deliver projects during a six-year delivery window.

Vote and next steps
The committee vote to refer the five ballot questions and the companion ordinance passed on a 6–1 roll call (Ayes: Gilmore, Cashman, Romero Campbell, Sandoval, Watson, Chair Serena Gonzalez Gutierrez; No: Hines). The referral sends the package to the full City Council for first reading; presenters and council leadership said amendments to ballot language or project amounts could be made on the full council floor before final adoption.

What the committee did not decide
No final spending or contractual commitments were made at the committee meeting; the committee’s action was to refer the questions to the full council. Multiple council members pressed for more detail on project readiness, funding stacks for large bridges, specific plans for city-owned land proposed for housing, and how outstanding ADA/DOJ items will be completed. Councilmember Kamisha Hines stated she would vote no in committee because she was "not sure that this is ready," citing unanswered questions about project readiness and dependencies.

Context and background
Staff described Vibrant Denver as part of a multiyear bond process that follows prior packages (including the 2017 Elevate Denver and 2021 Rise bonds). Presenters said the proposed package was shaped by subcommittees, community meetings and executive review and that unselected projects will be reviewed for inclusion in the 2026 capital-improvements program.

Staff and officials outlined economic assumptions used in the presentation — including multi-year construction-cost inflation (staff cited typical industry growth of 4–6% per year) — and argued timing matters to preserve purchasing power. Presenters and council members also discussed the city’s administrative capacity to deliver a large, six-year bond program and the potential to leverage federal grants for certain bridge and transportation projects.

Ending: The referral sends the Vibrant Denver ballot language and companion ordinance to the full City Council, where members said they expect more debate and possible floor amendments before voters see any questions on the November ballot.