Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Garden Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises notice, aesthetics and resource concerns about city‑hall community garden
Summary
A nearby property owner told council he was not informed about the community garden on City Hall property and raised concerns about its permanence, appearance, water use and use of city staff resources; council acknowledged the comments and said staff would follow up.
A Woodland Park resident told the City Council on July 17 he was surprised and concerned that a community garden had been installed on City Hall property without visible public notice or apparent opportunity for comment.
Tom Gearhart, who owns a building diagonally opposite City Hall, said he discovered the garden only after seeing it in place. "I knew nothing about it before it went into effect," Gearhart said. He told council he searched past meeting records and could not find public discussion documenting where and how the garden was approved.
Gearhart said his concerns are both aesthetic and economic. He said the garden does not enhance the appearance of City Hall as he sees it, and that the city has devoted staff time and water resources to the site without an offsetting payment or clear economic benefit to the municipality. Gearhart said he was told by city staff (he referenced Jody Miharis) that elements of the garden — such as raised planting troughs — were funded through a grant, but he said questions remain about ongoing maintenance and whether the garden is permanent.
Council members thanked Gearhart for his comments and acknowledged his perspective. Mayor Keith and staff said they heard his concerns; no formal action was taken at the meeting. City staff did not provide a detailed response during the public comment period beyond acknowledging receipt of the concerns and referencing prior internal approvals; staff or council did not identify additional permitting or a variance process in the public record at the hearing.
Gearhart suggested alternate locations such as Memorial Park or other city open spaces where the garden might be less prominent. He also asked whether the garden would be permanent and whether the city intended to seek compensation for water or staff resources. The council did not adopt any changes at the meeting but the remarks were placed on the record.
The city’s planning and parks staff can be requested to provide the council and the resident with the project history, grant documentation and any agreements with the garden organizers. The resident asked that the council consider whether public notice and an opportunity for comment should have been provided in advance of installing the garden on City Hall property.
