On February 6, 2024, the Nederland Board of Trustees (BOT) discussed several “controversial” issues that have brought forth fervent public discourse, from the now-infamous Town logo designed by Godot Communications Inc., to the much maligned Chipeta Park pump track project. In devising how to proceed on these matters, Trustees have elected to let the people decide, though with a few caveats.

First, Trustees, along with Town staff and representatives for Godot, compromised to allow a change to the creative identity design process, specifically regarding the logo. The response from the Nederland community was so universally negative that a design-by-committee process was implemented. The community was invited to a Design Session at the Nederland Community Center on January 30, during which 15 logo designs were reviewed; voting was also opened online for all of Nederland to participate.

During their meeting on February 6 the BOT reviewed the voting results: the community had chosen an AI-generated image created by a local resident as their top choice. Feedback from the design session, as well as sentiment from public comment and Trustee discussion during the February 6 meeting, indicated that none of Godot’s designs were satisfactory without further changes, and that introduced a preference to simply return to the Town’s current logo.

“It’s not the project, it’s the location.” Several members of the community have spoken out against the proposal to construct a concrete pump track in Chipeta Park.[/caption]

The Board were met with a few options on how to proceed, though it came down to either the BOT dictating to Godot which design choice to move forward with, or to narrow down the options and allow the public to continue to vote on their preferences.

The Board opted to allow the public to continue to weigh in, after which they plan to make a final decision during their meeting on March 5.

However, though the vote will be open again to the public, the most popular choice from the last round of voting, a hula-hooping moose featured in the foreground, with a body of water and mountains displayed in the background, will not be included in this next round of voting. Because the image is AI-generated, and features a registered design that is owned, Godot has specified that that particular logo can not be in the running “as is.”

Town Administrator Miranda Fisher explained to The Mountain-Ear that some of the more popular elements of the hula-hooping moose logo could be utilized in one of the three next most popular choices.

Trustees were originally tentative about allowing a community vote on multiple designs, and noted that they may have set the entire project onto a more complex and difficult path by doing so.

“This is exactly what I was hoping we wouldn’t do, is throw a bunch of logos out there and do a survey,” Trustee Eric Coombs-Esmail said during the February 6 meeting. “I just don’t think that this process is that valuable because when it comes to things like design and art it is subjective. Everybody thinks that their perspective is the perspective that grounds reality; opinions are the things we all have and there just is no coherent objective way to approach this.”

One of the major concerns surrounding the matter of Nederland’s logo is the long-term implication of implementing something that does not meet public approval. A logo is meant to represent the Town and its people for generations, so therefore it seems too polarizing a subject due to the many opinions surrounding it. The same passionate opinions arise in matters that are, in many ways, much more consequential to Nederland.

Also on February 6, Trustee Jesse Seavers and Mayor Pro Tem Tom Mahowald addressed the rest of the Board with the proposal to add to the April 2, 2024, election ballot the question of whether or not the voters support the proposed pump track project. The pump track has been a controversial subject because of objections to its proposed location, between the basketball court and the parking lot at Chipeta Park.

Many residents feel that because Chipeta Park is a publicly utilized space, the public should have the opportunity to vote on the matter. A group of dedicated residents circulated a petition to gain signatures in support of a “People’s Initiative” to allow the electorate to vote on the proposal.

The petition was received by Town Clerk Macy Caligaris on January 30, who rejected the petition for not meeting the requirements for proposing municipal legislation, and for being in the form of a ballot question rather than in the form of an ordinance.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31, Article 11, subsections 101 through 118 indicates that municipal electors have “initiative and referendum powers” to propose ordinances, and details the process through which these citizen petitions are evaluated for sufficiency.

Additionally, under these statutes the BOT is permitted to bring matters of public concern forward as a question on a municipal election ballot without the need for a public petition.

CRS 31-11-111 states: “(1) After an election has been ordered pursuant to section 31-11-104 or 31-11-105, the legislative body of the municipality or its designee shall promptly fix a ballot title for each initiative or referendum.

“(2) The legislative body of any municipality may, without receipt of any petition, submit any proposed or adopted ordinance or resolution or any question to a vote of the registered electors of the municipality. The legislative body of the municipality or its designee shall fix a ballot title for the referred measure.”

Seavers and Mahowald explained to fellow Trustees their intentions for presenting the action item, specifying that the aim is to allow Nederland voters the chance to “directly influence the development and use of communal spaces.”

“The public did put together a petition trying to get something like this on the ballot anyway and it was rejected on sort of administrative grounds, as I understand it,” Seavers said, explaining how he was persuaded to champion the people’s initiative by introducing the resolution to the Board.

“It was the handwritten note that took me over the edge. It doesn’t cost us anything extra, and I think it’s a great opportunity to flex our democracy.”

However, it was later specified that the question on the ballot was only intended to gauge the community’s feelings pertaining to the pump track project, and that the BOT would not be bound by the results of the vote.

“I got clarification from our attorneys on this, we don’t actually have to do what the public says,” Seavers detailed. “This is really a temperature check, we’re not actually proposing any legislation, there’s no ordinance being put forward here. It’s really just to say if this is popular or not; this has no teeth, it doesn’t bind us to anything.”

After discussion regarding how much information about the proposed project should be included on the ballot, specifically referring to the cost of the pump track and where those funds are expected to come from, the BOT committed to specifying on the ballot where the pump track is planned to be constructed, and that it will be an asphalt pump track.

The pump track, according to Seavers, could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $500,000, depending on the location and final approved design. The project is expected to be developed by American Ramp Company, which has created preliminary designs for the cost of $10,000 provided by the Nederland Downtown Development Authority, that depict the pump track in the Chipeta Park location.

“We’ve already gotten halfway down the road of designing and coming up with blueprints and engineering for an asphalt pump track in that specific location,” Seavers noted. “If we’re going to pull back on that we should do that sooner rather than later.”

The location has been contested by the public since originally proposed, though the project has garnered support from Nederland’s advisory boards and commissions. The opposition would prefer that Chipeta Park not become congested, and for the Town to assess other potential locations, including near NedRINK, or near the middle/high school.

Additionally, Attorney Keith Martin advised Seavers and the BOT that they could not campaign or advocate for the pump track once it is a featured question on the ballot. However, Martin explained that any new “neutral” information concerning the project could be posted through the Town’s official platforms, including Engage Nederland on the Town’s website, if said information were to be presented by one of Nederland’s advisory boards.

The Board approved allowing the question on the pump track to be included on the April 2 election ballot.

Afterwards, Seavers spoke on the People’s Initiative, mentioning that there were two signed petitions submitted, though only one was accepted.

“I want to commend the public for putting together two petitions to compel us to put two initiatives on the ballot. Even though they were rejected, I really commend the efforts to exercise democracy and to take action,” Seavers said, before mentioning he was pleased that the issue of the pump track would be a ballot question in April.

“I feel like this is a concession in some ways to put something on the ballot to allow the public to voice their opinion in a formalized way.”

The matter of the proposal from TEENS, Inc. to lease town-owned land at 750 West 5th Street for 99 years for $1 a year to develop and manage a two-floor childcare center has been an incredibly popular subject among Nederland residents. Each time the matter is presented on the Board or the Planning Commission’s agenda, it is followed by a litany of letters of public comment, the majority of which are in favor of the proposal.

Those opposed, most of whom are residents of the impacted neighborhood, feel that the childcare center does not match with the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and that affordable and/or senior housing was more appropriate. There are many who, much like those who oppose the pump track, feel that issues concerning the long-term use of public land should be voted on by the public.

However, the petition to allow the question of support for the TEENS, Inc. childcare center, officially received on February 1, 2024, was rejected by Caligaris, again because it did not meet the requirement of proposing municipal legislation.

“As I understand it, the reason those were rejected is because there’s no ordinance or legislation pertaining to those particular topics,” Seavers mentioned.

The petition reads as follows: “The voters of Nederland find and declare that low-income housing, especially for seniors, is needed for residents. We further declare that such housing of a scale consistent with existing neighborhoods, with consideration given to waterway habitat and provision for green space ensures that neighborhoods remain livable and intact, while making room for new people and preserving critical natural environment.

“A yes vote directs the Board of Trustees, the Nederland Planning Commission, and other boards or commissions as applicable, to finalize the addition to the land use table allowing for low-income housing on town-owned land, and authorize any necessary redrawing of lot lines at 750 W. 5th Street.

“The Nederland Board of Trustees will formulate a process and timeline by April 2025 to solicit proposals from contractors for this project in an open and public process.

“Project to include four units which shall be reserved for senior housing on the ground floor, plus three additional units in a second story, including one for a resident manager, in a single building not to exceed 2,500 square feet on the bottom floor, with up to 4,000 square feet total.

“The remainder of the property shall be reserved for necessary public right of way and public green space. Town will maintain ownership and maintenance of the green space. A process for prioritizing local residents shall be implemented and part of any approved proposal.”

Local business owner Kathleen Chippi questioned during the February 6 meeting why the petition was not accepted, as well as raised concerns about why conversations on other uses of 750 West 5th Street are prohibited.

“The Town Attorney doesn’t seem to be explaining what is non-legislative in the housing initiative. I have a feeling that the people are going to move forward legally to try to rectify this and get the formatting approved, get signatures, and have a special election,” Chippi said in her public statement on non-agenda items.

“I also dispute the fact that the BOT is not allowed to talk about what happens at 750 (West 5th Street). The public and Trustees should not be silenced; they still have their freedom of speech to talk about housing at that address.”

Mayor Billy Giblin referred to the Town Attorney to clarify whether Trustees were permitted to discuss the property that is associated with the Special Review Use (SRU) application from TEENS, Inc.

“I urge the board not to talk about any pending quasi-judicial matter or any potential matter that could come before the board as a quasi-judicial matter,” Attorney Martin clarified. “Once there’s a piece of land and there’s a pending land use application pertaining to that land it’s a general rule of thumb a good idea to not talk about it.”

“Because this is public land I don’t agree,” Chippi said. “That land was never opened up to the public to bid on for private uses whatsoever, so that’s what I find disturbing in this whole thing. Because one private entity puts a proposal for the use of public land everyone has to be silent? I don’t think that’s fair.”

“I would prefer that we go through the process that is actually elucidated in the law, which is we make a decision first, then it is petitioned, then it goes to the ballot, and then it is binding,” Coombs-Esmail responded.

On February 20, the Board voted to approve the SRU application, permitting TEENS, Inc. to move forward with their proposed plan and begin the fundraising process.

If petitioners were to gather enough signatures from Nederland residents, the townspeople could require the BOT to revisit any decision that they have made. Such initiatives have been successful in the recent past, such as the petition circulated in 2023 to reverse the Board’s decision to rezone 100 1st Street for the use of a paid parking lot.

Residents of the impacted neighborhood could deploy the same tactic, among others, now that the TEENS, Inc. childcare proposal has been approved and is classified as a legislation.

The BOT has only scratched the surface of the “controversial” issues that threaten to impact Nederland and its residents; it certainly seems apparent that the residents are paying attention and are keeping their elected officials on their toes.