In a significant moment for the city of Denver, residents will soon vote on a proposed $800 million bond package aimed at funding vital capital projects. However, with requests overshadowing available funds, city officials face the daunting task of prioritizing projects from a staggering list of over 220 proposals, which collectively amount to $6 billion.
The bond package, if approved in November, will allow the city to finance various projects, but the reality is that much of what residents and city departments envision will likely go unfunded.
The diversity of requests highlights the urgent needs across Denver. Cultural institutions, such as the Boettcher Concert Hall and Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance, seek funds for extensive expansions, while transit advocates are pushing for improved safety corridors for cyclists and pedestrians.
In addition to these proposals, neighborhoods that have historically been sidelined are advocating for better recreation centers and libraries. One major focal point of this debate has been public housing, a contentious and pressing issue for many.
The movement to incorporate public housing into this year’s bond package has gained momentum unlike ever before. Numerous community members have attended meetings advocating for its inclusion, in a city where previous bond initiatives focused only on temporary homeless shelters.
“Mayor Johnston ran on addressing the homelessness crisis in Denver and the affordability crisis in Denver,” stated Katelyn Stenger, a resident voicing her desire for housing funding from the bond. “This bond process is a way to reflect those campaign values that he stated a little over a year ago. And instead of quick fixes like sheltering 1,000 people, we need permanent structures.”
The subcommittee responsible for suggesting potential projects has recommended prioritizing affordable housing, listing three distinct projects as high priority. The Department of Housing Stability aims to utilize bond funds to purchase land for affordable housing development.
However, many advocates express skepticism about whether sufficient focus will be placed on housing by the executive committee. Concerns regarding the committee’s composition have been raised, with some community members feeling it lacks representation.
This executive committee, appointed by Mayor Mike Johnston, comprises 10 leaders from various sectors, including Denver City Council President Amanda Sandoval and former mayor Federico Peña.
Simultaneously, long-standing projects are vying for attention. Andrea Barela, involved with the Santa Fe Business Improvement District, has been advocating for the redevelopment of Santa Fe Drive, a central corridor in Denver’s art district. The area has faced complaints about inadequate street conditions and non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Barela has pushed for funding for this project, which has been rejected in earlier bond packages, and finds herself frustrated as the Santa Fe Streetscape project has been assigned the lowest priority tier.
“Apparently our corridor is not important enough to get these funds, and I don’t know why. I don’t get it,” Barela exclaimed. “There’s something at play that I’m not privy to.”
Years of groundwork and approximately $2 million dollars have been invested into the project, and Barela fears that without bond funds, the future of this initiative remains uncertain.
“It’s just going to delay any progress on this project further and further,” she added. “I don’t know when we will ever be considered. This is the third time that we’ve been passed up for bond funding.”
Jamie Torres, a council member representing the Santa Fe Arts District, believes that the project could still find its way into the final bond package. She aims to clarify the project’s significance beyond mere cosmetic enhancements, framing it as a vital infrastructure undertaking.
Torres expressed concern that the project may have been misrepresented as merely beautification, which could hinder its chances of receiving support.
In addition to housing and specific local infrastructure, other community proposals also call for improved libraries, enhanced city parks, and upgraded athletic facilities. Should the bond fail to fund neighborhood projects, Torres assures that there will be future financial avenues available to pursue these improvements.
“We have other pots of money that I think we need to make sure community knows are still going to be there, including our sales tax-funded park fund and our sales tax-funded climate fund,” Torres explained.
Despite the potential for future funding, some Council members are voicing concerns regarding the current bond process, questioning its hurried nature compared to previous initiatives. The timeline for this bond package, which was introduced in February, has provided only nine months of preparation before the potential vote in November. This contrasts sharply with the 2017 Elevate Denver bond, which took 18 months to finalize.
There are also apprehensions regarding the integrity of the information available throughout the process. Councilmember Amanda Sawyer highlighted concerns over unclear communication and potential gaps in the information shared with both council members and the public.
“I think that we can see that there are clear examples of information gaps or failures that have happened. I don’t know if that’s a result of a rushed process or something else,” she stated.
The Denver Department of Finance acknowledged that the assessment of preliminary costs was conducted in collaboration with various city agencies, reiterating that cost estimates are subject to change.
Torres also criticized the manner in which community input was handled, arguing that the feedback received failed to reflect the true level of support for certain ideas, thus diminishing their visibility.
“Things came through as singular ideas as opposed to being portrayed as ideas that have some weight to them because of group support or lots of submissions for a particular idea,” she said.
Additionally, concerns regarding the inflated cost estimates associated with various projects have been raised by several council members. One project, for example, was assigned a price nine times higher than previous estimates, signaling potential discrepancies in the budgeting process.
Torres preemptively addressed these inflated numbers, worrying they could negatively influence funding allocations if the executive committee deems certain projects unjustifiably expensive.
As the process draws closer to its conclusion, the executive committee must present its project recommendations to the mayor next month. The mayor’s office will then review and modify the list before it proceeds to the city council for further adjustments.
Ultimately, the council will have the final say on amendments before sending the proposal to voters. Councilmember Sawyer remains hopeful that her concerns will be addressed before reaching this final stage.
“Am I going to burn it all down? I don’t know yet,” she pondered. “It depends on whether they can pull it together and fix those glaring issues before it gets to us.”
All the while, residents from various neighborhoods continue to await the outcomes regarding their proposed projects, living in anticipation as the city navigates this complex and critical funding process.
image source from：https://denverite.com/2025/06/17/vibrant-denver-bond-proposals/
