Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Botanical garden group reports near‑term fundraising success; DDA urges caution about locating garden at confluence
Summary
Volunteers and nonprofit leaders reported they are close to a $100,000 fundraising goal to relocate a historic greenhouse and start the Riverside Botanical Garden; the Downtown Development Authority and others cautioned that placing the garden on the 4‑acre confluence/wastewater site would conflict with decades of downtown‑to‑river planning and could limit public river access.
Representatives of the Riverside Botanical Garden told council on June 18 they had raised nearly $95,000 toward a $100,000 phase‑one goal needed to dismantle and temporarily store an historic Lord & Burnham greenhouse and begin site work on a proposed Glenwood Springs botanical garden.
"As of today ... we have received over 200 donations from generous local citizens and organizations, amounting to $95,000," director Laura Speck said, reporting community support and an anonymous large gift that pushed the campaign close to its initial target.
Garden leaders said they planned a phased approach: nonprofit standing and fundraising (phase 1), re‑erecting and expanding garden features and programming (phase 2), and building sustainable operating models (phase 3). They emphasized partnerships with local educators and College of Western Colorado (CMC) for sustainable design and geothermal ideas.
But the Downtown Development Authority and several downtown stakeholders urged caution about placing the garden at the confluence site on land near the wastewater plant. The DDA’s memorandum — discussed at the meeting — urged council not to lease the four‑acre confluence parcel to the garden group and emphasized the site’s role in a multi‑decade downtown‑to‑river strategy intended to preserve public river access.
"The DDA board ... does not support a botanical garden being located on the four‑acre wastewater treatment plant site," the DDA memo said, citing decades of public planning and investment in riverfront access. DDA and other speakers worried that a gated or paid garden could limit public river access and that the city could inherit long‑term operating obligations should the nonprofit struggle to meet an operating budget estimated by presenters and peers to be in the mid‑hundreds of thousands annually.
Council members urged continued collaboration: garden leaders said they were open to alternative locations, and DDA members said they’d like to be part of a cross‑organizational planning process to decide confluence use in a way that balances river access, historic preservation and economic development.
What happens next: Garden organizers plan continued fundraising and technical planning; DDA requested additional conversations before the city makes land commitments. The council did not vote on a lease or land transfer at the June 18 meeting.
Why it matters: The proposal interweaves historic‑preservation, park design, downtown access and long‑term operations. A decision about siting will affect river access, downtown connections and how the community balances paid attractions with open public space.
