Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fort Chambers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, tribal partners raise concerns about Fort Chambers interpretive plan and survey methods
Summary
Several public commenters told the board they want Fort Chambers’ interpretive design reconsidered, asked whether tribal nations and subject-matter experts were consulted, and requested staff hold focused listening sessions with affected groups before moving forward with the draft interpretive experience.
Several residents and community groups used public comment at the Open Space Board of Trustees meeting on July 8 to press staff for changes to the Fort Chambers interpretive-design process and to request clearer, broader outreach to tribal partners and subject-matter experts.
Paula Palmer of Right Relationship Boulder told trustees the Fort Chambers multiple-choice surveys "force people to make choices among narrowly defined options" and asked who completed the survey, specifically, "How many Native Americans? How many historians? How many design experts?" She said groups including the Museum of Boulder and History Colorado should be engaged and requested a meeting between Right Relationship Boulder, OSMP staff and the studio consultants to clarify concerns.
Ayanna Bridal, a co‑founder of Culture in Place who helped plan a 2022 remembering event, urged staff to stop the current plan and pursue a different approach that centers descendants’ voices. "Nobody I know — no indigenous person I know who was a descendant of the people who were killed there, at Sand Creek — wants to go there," she said, and asked that the project prioritize workable land outcomes and meaningful consultation.
Trustees and staff response: Open Space staff (Dan Burke) said the interpretive experience is only one element of the 115‑acre Fort Chambers concept plan, which also includes ecological restoration and agricultural continuation. Staff said the project has had five engagement windows; they are currently wrapping up engagement window 4, have held in‑person sessions with tribal representatives, and are planning a listening session to let consultant Studio Tectonic hear directly where stakeholders believe staff “missed the mark.” Staff committed to providing trustees a written summary of engagement-window 4 results before proceeding to engagement window 5 later in the year.
Neighbor concerns about utility work: Lisa Kincannon, vice president of the Shanahan Ridge 2 HOA, asked about an Xcel Energy proposal to replace a transmission line shown on a map in the packet (page 28). She said prior Xcel work had damaged irrigation infrastructure and fences on private property without notice or repair, and asked whether a license agreement for work on open space would include explicit restoration and repair commitments to protect adjacent private infrastructure. Staff said Xcel is leading the project, that staff has made Xcel aware of neighborhood concerns, and that a license agreement for work on OSMP land will address restoration responsibilities; staff will provide more detailed contract language next month.
What happens next: Staff said they will continue tribal consultation, convene listening sessions where needed, and return to the board with engagement summaries and any revised design materials in the next phases of public engagement. For the Xcel project, staff said a license agreement covering restoration obligations will be drafted and discussed at an upcoming meeting.
