Arvada council approves parks code rewrite but removes clause critics feared could fast‑track utility use of dog‑park land

The Arvada City Council on March 3 adopted a sweeping rewrite of Chapter 66 of the Arvada City Code, modernizing park administration, updating prohibited conduct, and adding rules for unique assets such as municipal golf courses and the Blunn Reservoir. The ordinance passed 5–0, but council amended the draft to remove a single disputed paragraph — Section 66‑13 B6 — after more than three hours of public comment focused on potential impacts to the West Arvada Dog Park and nearby Bird’s Nest disc golf course.

Residents, park volunteers and multiple nonprofit leaders told the council they had invested time and private funds building and maintaining the dog park and asked council to protect its boundaries. Speakers described the park as a daily community hub and raised alarm over language in the draft that would create an administrative procedure for “returning” recreational resources situated on property purchased with water‑fund dollars to the utilities department “upon request of the city manager.” Opponents said that phrasing, as written, could be read to sidestep established land‑use review and public hearing safeguards.

City staff and the city attorney responded that the provision was intended to create an internal procedure for how to implement a council‑directed change of use — not to allow a director to unilaterally close or transfer park land. Staff explained that land purchased with enterprise (water) fund dollars is legally subject to limits on non‑utility uses and that, in practice, any decision to site a pump station or otherwise change land use would trigger council approval, contracts, and public engagement before construction could begin. Utilities staff said feasibility work for a needed pump station is now beginning, with a goal of completing feasibility by the summer and moving to construction in 2027 if necessary.

Despite staff assurances, council members and residents said the draft language created a perception problem and uncertainty about what authority the Parks director would hold. To resolve that concern, Councilmember Ambrose moved to approve the chapter as a whole but to remove Section 66‑13 B6 “and any related changes” so staff could rework and return with clarifying language and cross‑references. The motion passed unanimously (5–0) with Mayor Pro Tem Morman and Councilmember Pfeiffer excused.

What happens next: staff will revise the reserved subsection to tighten the link between any administrative steps and prior council direction, clean up cross‑references in related ordinances, and outline a clearer public‑engagement process for potential utility site selection. Utilities staff said they plan community outreach as sites are evaluated, with visible geotechnical and survey work and public forums before a preferred site is recommended to council.

The council’s action preserved the bulk of the parks code modernization while deferring the most contested change for additional drafting and public clarity. Residents said they will continue to seek written documentation about the original land purchases and any historical use agreements that shaped the park’s long community stewardship.