The Heart of Golden project began in 2019, when the City bought the Coors office building and parking lots. Their initial plan was to relieve several space concerns using that building, but they soon decided that the building was not suitable for their needs, so they demolished it.
They then held several community open houses showing renderings of trails and parkland that extended from the RV park to Vanover Park. This included the proposal to build new municipal buildings where the Coors office building had been, demolishing the current City Hall, and turning that property into parkland. The fire station would stay where it is, and the library probably would too. People generally liked the idea of a bigger park, covering more of the "creekfront."
City staff continued planning for this proposed change. In February, staff recommended that Council finance the new building(s) using "Certificates of Participation." This is a form of debt that does not require voter approval.
The memo for that meeting stated that "projects that are for government operations would generally fall under the decision-making umbrella of the elected officials and the use of COPs, while projects for amenities that benefit the general public may be more appropriate for a general election where the public decides if they want the project and are willing to approve the debt to finance it." A previous memo explained that projects that lack public appeal should not go to the voters, because they might say no.
While not a formal or final decision, Council gave staff the go-ahead to pursue COP funding.
This pre-decision caused considerable consternation in the community. A range of costs had been discussed over time, but the estimate at that period was $59-65 million to build a new city hall/police building. This did not include a future parking structure, demolition of the current City Hall, or development of the parkland along the Creek. Some citizens thought that was too much debt for the City to take on without a vote by the taxpayers.
May 14th was an exciting City Council meeting. During the study session, staff explained their plan to hire a project manager to oversee design and construction of the new building.
The business meeting began with public comment, at which a newly-formed group of citizens appeared, asking Council to allow the voters to decide whether to fund new municipal buildings. (Watch the public comment at this link, starting at 1 hr, 50 minutes.)
The group emphasized that they were neither for nor against new facilities; they simply wanted the voters to approve the expense. They stated that, if necessary, that would collect signatures from voters petitioning a change to the city charter which would limit what Council could spend without voter approval. At that time, they did not specify the limit.
Later in that meeting, Council approved the the contract to hire a project manager for the new building(s) at a cost "not to exceed $644,902."
After the May meeting, the citizens group continued to meet and discuss their proposed change to the City charter. They met with the City Manager and with most of the City Council members, repeating that they were neither in favor nor opposed to the proposed new buildings/demo of the current buildings--they simply wanted voters to approve the expense.
That group plans to present their petition to Council tonight. It sets $15 million as the limit that Council can spend without voter approval. Critical infrastructure projects, such as water and sewer, are exempt from the limit.
City staff and Council are concerned that if this spending limit is put on a ballot, citizens will approve it. Once the charter is changed, they would be forced to bring the new municipal buildings to the voters--who might or might not approve the expense.
Staff feels that they need more time to develop their plans and get some good conceptual drawings, so they can more effectively persuade voters of the desirability of the new buildings. To that end, they will ask Council tonight to approve a contract with an architecture firm for "lump sum fee not to exceed $2,620,610."
Unless Council agrees to limit their non-voter-approved spending to $15 million, the petitions will soon be in circulation.
Personal Observation:
From what I have observed, Council genuinely feels that this project is the best thing for the future of the community. Some of them seem offended to have their judgement questioned. They are both saddened and irritated at the loss of faith in government.
