Arvada grants parks director power to ban residents from public parks without a hearing

ARVADA — The Arvada City Council voted 5-0 on March 3 to adopt a roughly 30-page parks rules package that grants the city’s parks director broad new authority to ban residents from public parks and recreational facilities for up to six months. Under the new rules, a trespass notice can be delivered by email or first-class mail with no hearing required before the ban takes effect.

The vote drew immediate criticism from Mike Rawluk, an Arvada resident and community advocate who spoke against the trespass provisions at the meeting and later detailed his concerns on The Kim Monson Show.

What the new rules allow

Under the adopted language, the parks director “may for good cause limit, restrict, revoke, or otherwise prohibit the access to or use of any recreational resource by any user reasonably deemed by the director to be in violation of any applicable city or state law,” Rawluk read from the ordinance text during his appearance on The Kim Monson Show.

According to Rawluk’s reading of the ordinance, the director can issue a six-month ban from all Arvada parkland by sending a letter via first-class U.S. mail or electronic mail to the person’s last known address. No in-person notice or law enforcement involvement is required.

“Good cause” is defined in the rules as credible evidence that a person has violated any city or state law, policy, procedure, rule, regulation, or code of conduct, or has “engaged in conduct that substantially interferes with the enjoyment of the resource by others, or with the efficient operation of the resource,” according to Rawluk’s reading of the ordinance.

No hearing before the ban

The trespass takes effect upon notice, Rawluk said. A banned resident’s only recourse is to file an appeal with Arvada Municipal Court within 14 days of the director’s notice. The appeal requires the resident to submit “a statement or other evidence explaining why there was not good cause for the director’s action,” placing the burden on the citizen to prove innocence rather than on the city to prove a violation.

“So now there’s a precedent that you can get an email that says you are banned for six months from public property. No hearing,” Rawluk said on The Kim Monson Show. “The first hearing you get is an appeal, not an actual hearing.”

Rawluk contrasted the new process with the existing trespass procedure, under which a police officer would respond in person, remove the individual, and issue a 14-day notice. A judge would then hear the case and determine whether to impose a ban of up to one year.

“They’re trying to say that the due process afforded to a citizen is the fact that you have an appeal,” Rawluk said. “That’s different.”

Constitutional concerns

Rawluk argued the new rules raise due process issues under both the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. He cited Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and Section 23, which holds that “the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases.”

“The director now has power to restrict your liberty, which is also a 14th Amendment issue,” Rawluk said. He noted that the parks director is not a sworn law enforcement officer and lacks training in legal standards such as reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Rawluk also raised surveillance concerns, questioning how the director would gather evidence to support a trespass. “Is it just based on hearsay? Does he or she have to be out at the park to see these things? Or are we entering a new world of dog park cams?” he said.

Part of a broader package

The trespass provisions were embedded in a larger parks rules rewrite that the council approved in a single vote. The package also authorizes the city to set user fees, close parks for overuse or “value preservation,” and addresses plans for a pump station on parkland that could affect the West Nevada Dog Park area or Bird’s Nest Disc Golf Park.

Most residents who attended the meeting spoke about the potential park closures, according to Rawluk. He said he was the only person to address the trespass authority.

“It was 30 pages or so that got voted on all at once,” Rawluk said.

The Arvada City Council has seven members. Two members were absent or recused from the March 3 vote, which passed with the five remaining members voting in favor.

“Be careful in your city,” Rawluk said. “Please watch the authority given to what I like to call the fourth branch of government. You don’t elect the staff. There’s nothing wrong with the staff as far as I’m sure they’re good humans. But when they start doing this, they don’t realize the power that they’re stripping away from elected representative government.”