Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs e‑bike rules and whether TOPS open‑space language requires a public vote
Summary
Debate focused on whether changes to prohibit or permit electric‑assist bicycles on TOPS‑funded open space require a voter referendum because the original TOPS ballot language forbids motorized vehicles; proponents say TABOR/TOPS restrict council action, opponents favor a measured council process and more public engagement.
Attorney Wayne Williams, representing a group advocating for a ballot question, told the council that the city’s TOPS (Trails, Open Space and Parks) ballot language and TABOR constraints mean changes that would allow motorized or motor‑assisted devices on TOPS lands likely require a vote of the people. Williams urged the council to put a question to voters rather than attempt to change definitions administratively. "When there was an option to expand I‑25… the RTA board put it on the vote of the people, and the people said, 'Let’s add that,'" Williams said, using past precedent to argue for a vote when ballot‑imposed restrictions are at issue.
Councilmembers and parks staff discussed different approaches for classifying where class 1 e‑bikes (pedal‑assist) would be allowed, and whether council could create rules for non‑TOPS city trails while reserving TOPS properties for voter action. Britt Haley, parks director, described an extensive public engagement process dating to 2018 and said the department conducted a broad survey and received more than 3,500 responses in the region. "There is a substantial built in component" of public engagement, Haley said, noting the TOPS working committee and the Parks Advisory Board had reviewed options.
City Attorney Ben Bollinger told the council the city could define an undefined term in municipal code — for example, defining "non‑motorized" to clarify enforcement on city trails — but he also cautioned that the legal and political context is complex. Williams advised against a one‑size‑fits‑all ballot approach, saying some urban multi‑use paved trails are different from single‑track open‑space trails and that the ballot language should allow nuanced outcomes and give the parks director rule‑making authority and reporting requirements.
Councilmembers split: some said they were not ready to place an item on the April ballot and urged more time for drafting and public education; others argued for voter decision because the TOPS acquisition was created by a voter‑approved tax and voters should decide changes to permitted uses. No final decision was recorded; staff said they would return with options and that council could postpone or withdraw the ballot item at the regular meeting.
Why it matters: The debate addresses how the city balances recreational access, trail user safety and the legal limits on changing uses of TOPS‑acquired open space. The outcome affects hikers, cyclists, accessibility and how the city implements trail rules across types of trails.
Council next steps: Staff and council agreed to continue work on language and outreach. The council will consider the item on Feb. 11 (parks ordinance) and may formalize ballot language or a council‑referred measure after further review.
