Author: Administrator

(Guest opinion) Gordon Pedrow: One more reason the Distel-Tull land exchange is wrong

Published in the Times Call on September 14, 2025

The City Council, the city manager and Public Works Department have been locked in controversy over their desire to turn the Distel open space into an industrial development — a compost facility. A group of local residents known as the friends of Longmont open space have vigorously opposed the proposal.

Despite the opposition, including a rejection of the proposal by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), the only advisory body to which the council referred the matter, the City Council seems determined to plunge ahead because Boulder County is willing to partner with the city to construct the compost facility on city of Longmont open space. Boulder County would never convert any of its open space to an industrial use.

In 2000, Longmont voters approved an open space ballot measure submitted to them by the City Council via Ordinance 2000-41. The voters approved Ordinance 2000-41 complete with a tax increase to fund it, definition of open space and a list of functions open space must serve. Section I of Ordinance 2000-41 states that open space SHALL serve one or more of the following functions:

• Preservation of natural areas, wildlife habitat, wetlands, agriculture and visual corridors.

• Linkage and trails, access to public lakes, streams, and other open spaces lands.

• Conservation of natural resources.

• District parks.

• Implementing greenways and open spaces policies in the comprehensive plan.

• Urban shaping buffers between and around municipalities.

Industrial development for a compost facility is not on the list.

Section J of ordinance 2000-41 is a critical part of the ordinance. It states: ONCE ACQUIRED, OPEN SPACE MAY BE USED ONLY FOR PURPOSES SET FORTH ABOVE.

In 2011, the City Council approved Ordinance 2011-10 regarding rare situations where disposing of open space might be necessary. This ordinance was not submitted for voter approval although it provides a means to change the essence of Ordinance 2000-41 which was approved by Longmont voters. The current City Council is attempting to use that disposition ordinance to obviate section J of Ordinance 2000-41. I was city manager when the disposition ordinance was adopted. I believe the city attorney and I mistakenly did not catch the need to refer this ordinance to the voters because we did not imagine a future council would try to nullify any parts of an ordinance approved by Longmont voters. The open space disposition ordinance was intended to clarify the future need for the acquisition of street rights of way owned by the open space program. Construction of Martin Street had required purchase of open space right of way to construct the bridge at St. Vrain Creek. Again, not for industrial development, which was inconceivable in 2011.

If the current City Council moves forward to convert land purchased for open space, which the Distel property was, it seems to me to run up against a number of legal issues such as a voter approved ordinance containing section J. It is my understanding that Colorado case law requires local governments to spend tax dollars in strict conformity with ballot language. If and when the City Council votes to convert land purchased as open space to an industrial use (not in conformity with ballot language) then, it will be time to challenge the legality of the open space disposition ordinance which was not referred to the voters. The Friends of Longmont open space and anyone opposed to a compost facility on the Distel open space will need to step up to pay for legal action. I will be first in line with my checkbook.

Gordon Pedrow served as city manager in Longmont from 1993 to 2012.

(Guest opinion) Jeff Lester: Honor our agreements, protect our open space

Published in the Times Call on September 7, 2025

When Longmont voters overwhelmingly approved the perpetual extension of our open space tax last November, they sent a clear message: Open space should mean permanent protection. These lands are not assets set aside for future industrial use — they are a lasting legacy for wildlife, recreation, and community well-being.

That is why the proposed Distel-Tull land exchange is troubling. It undermines voter trust and conflicts with an agreement Longmont made with our neighbor, the town of Frederick. In 2011, Longmont entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Frederick to guide growth and prevent industrial intrusion into the St. Vrain River and Boulder Creek corridor. Though the IGA does not list Distel by name, the property lies within the corridor and the half-mile coordinated planning buffer, making it subject to the protections the IGA established.

The IGA committed both communities to open space buffers and community separators. It called for preserving riparian areas in their natural state, protecting water quality and safeguarding wildlife habitat — including a major bald eagle roost near the confluence of the St. Vrain and Boulder Creek. It required 150-foot setbacks from riparian areas and a quarter-mile setback from the eagle roost. It directed development away from rivers and open space while envisioning trails and recreation corridors linking the two communities.

This is not a forgotten document. The IGA is publicly available on the city of Longmont’s website at longmontcolorado.gov/planning-and-development-services/plans-and-reports and can also be reviewed at the city clerk’s office. Any resident can read the commitments our city made with the town of Frederick to protect open space, wildlife and community buffers.

The Distel parcel, purchased with open space funds, sits squarely in this sensitive corridor and within the IGA’s planning zone. Converting it into a regional composting facility — or any industrial use — would disregard the IGA’s requirements for coordination with Frederick and protection of open space and habitat. The natural buffer Distel provides between Frederick and Longmont would be lost. A compost facility would bring runoff, leachate, odor and heavy truck traffic, all of which threaten water quality and wildlife. Bald eagles, in particular, would be at risk. The IGA directs development away from rivers and open space, yet this proposal plants industry in the middle of the corridor. The agreement also envisioned regional trails through these lands — trails that an industrial site would block or limit.

Once open space is breached for industry, the precedent is set. Other facilities will follow. Future councils will point to Distel and say, “We did it once, why not again?” The IGA was designed to prevent this erosion. Ignoring it damages trust not only between Longmont and Frederick but also with Longmont voters who approved the open space tax expecting permanent protection.

At its core, this debate is about trust. Voters funded open space so that it would remain open space. Residents expect their tax dollars to protect land in perpetuity, not enable land swaps that weaken protections. Agreements like the IGA exist to ensure that promise endures across councils and election cycles. Rejecting the Distel-Tull exchange is not just about saying no to a compost facility. It is about saying yes to the commitments we made: yes to open space buffers, yes to wildlife habitat, yes to clean rivers, yes to trail corridors, and yes to honoring our word as a community.

Longmont has other options for addressing infrastructure needs. But open space — especially land purchased with voter-approved funds — is not the place to solve them. If a regional compost facility is essential, it should be located on land zoned for industry, not in the heart of our natural corridors.

(Guest opinion) Shari Malloy: City Council should reject Distel-Tull land swap and repair public trust

Published in the Times Call on September 6, 2025

Longmont Friends of Open Space believe preserving Open Space is critical to Longmont’s well-being — ecologically, economically and culturally. Last fall, 74% of Longmont voters said yes to the perpetual extension of our Open Space tax, conveying a clear mandate to respect and protect these lands. The proposed Distel-Tull land swap does the opposite. It opens the door for industrial uses on land purchased with Open Space dollars, and undermines what we voted for.

The Distel-Tull proposal gives the city broad discretion to develop industrial facilities on Open Space — whether a composting facility, a fire-training center or something else. The swap shifts acreage between Public Works’ “Tull” property and the almost adjoining “Distel” Open Space. Both are across the river southeast of Sandstone Ranch. City Council has tabled this decision citing negotiations with the mining operator at Distel. This ignores public outcry addressing the root of the problem which is using Open Space for purposes other than Open Space.

In August 2020, City Council adopted changes to the Open Space Disposition Ordinance (14.52.030), allowing consideration of sale or exchange of Open Space if it “results in a net benefit to the Open Space program.” That ordinance requires referral to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) before council acts. When that happened in June, PRAB advised against the proposal — saying net benefit had not been adequately demonstrated and expressed concerns about precedent. Those arguments were well-founded, though sadly not respected by City Council which is proceeding anyway.

Our group proposes a constructive path forward protecting open space and repairing broken public trust. This includes:

1) Reject Distel-Tull land swap proposal ASAP.

2) Tighten the disposition ordinance. Demonstrating “net benefit” invites subjective interpretation. The cleaner, safer approach is to delete this term and simply limit disposals to right-of-way or utility easements. This helps guard against using Open Space as a land bank for future perceived “worthy” projects.

3) Put rare, exceptional disposal proposals to a vote by the people. City Charter 13.2 protects park lands and water rights by requiring voter approval before sale or repurpose. Adding “Open Space” to this charter provision would align the treatment of these three foundational assets and strengthen long- term public trust. A charter change codifies protections and requires a public vote. Then, if a future City Council believes an extraordinary case exists, the charter would give voters the power to decide.

If City Council approves this land swap they would set a terrible precedent. Once an industrial footprint is allowed, future pressures will follow. Indeed, the notion of using Open Space to “solve” other civic needs — such as housing — has already been floated. That slippery slope erodes the entire program’s purpose and violates the public’s trust.

At its core, this entire debate is about trust. Voters funded Open Space so that it stays Open Space. When residents see lands they paid to protect being positioned for a different purpose, confidence erodes. There is no reset when voters are betrayed. This puts passage of Boulder County’s extension on this fall’s ballot and any needed future Longmont Open Space ballot measures in jeopardy. Rejecting the proposed land swap, tightening the ordinance, and referring charter safeguards to voters would send an unmistakable message that City Council trusts residents to make good decisions.

I also want to acknowledge the breadth of community engagement on this issue. Hundreds of people across Longmont — neighbors, birders, trail users, families — have shown up to learn, testify, and write City Council. Whether concerns were wildlife habitat, recreation, fiscal stewardship or public confidence in government, the conclusion is the same: treating Open Space as flexible inventory is unacceptable. Our community deserves durable protections that match the commitment voters already made.

The Distel-Tull land swap and future of Open Space are at a crossroad. Choosing convenience today would set a precedent that invites similar exchanges tomorrow. Choosing prudence means recommitting to the original promise of Open Space — not as a bargaining chip, but as a legacy. Council should reject the swap, direct staff to tighten the disposition ordinance, and refer an Open Space charter protection ballot measure to voters. City Council can start rebuilding trust and insure future generations inherit what we pledged to protect.

Shari Malloy is a retired SVVSD special education teacher and core member of Longmont’s Friends of Open Space.

Celebrate National Trails Day at Button Rock Preserve

The City of Longmont will celebrate National Trails Day on Saturday, June 3rd, at the Button Rock Preserve. The city is recruiting volunteers to build steps along the Hummingbird trail.

If you are a hiker, this is an opportunity to give back to the community in a meaningful way by helping to maintain our trail system at Button Rock.

You can register and find more information regarding the Button Rock event here: https://joinus.longmontcolorado.gov/ActivityVolunteerRegistration/26c277b8-df6c-4458-bd7b-970358f35bcb

There will be snacks and live music along the lakeshore at the top of the trail at the end of the project.

Vote NO on Amendment 74: The Taxpayer Loses on All Fronts!

Amendment 74 is the most dangerous ballot issue in decades. It would require compensation of property owners for any reduction in their property value as a result of government regulation. If it passes, Colorado will completely lose the ability to protect the environment and public health. Proponents always claim that such measures protect private property rights. In actuality, however, they elevate one class of property over all others.

Environmental regulations are nearly always among the first targeted by this kind of action, because compliance with a regulation costs money. Any money an industry must spend to protect the environment is a direct reduction in profit margin, thus a reduction in “fair market value.” Amendment 74 would allow industry to claim payment for its loss from the government involved (ie. from us). In order to enact or enforce any regulation protecting public health and the environment, government would have to pay the polluter or developer to comply. Since no level of government – state, county, municipal – operates at a surplus, they wouldn’t have the funds to pay polluters, thus the only option they have is to eliminate regulations.

Some examples:
Land use regulations requiring buffer zones and green space for wildlife? Gone.
Requirements for companies to reclaim land they have mined? Gone.
Scrubbers on smokestacks to reduce acid rain and snow? Gone.
Regulations requiring berms around construction sites to prevent sedimentation of streams? Gone.
Regulations to protect water quality from discharges by mines, breweries, drycleaners, construction sites, feedlots or agricultural facilities? Gone.

Amendment 74, however, isn’t specific to just environmental regulation. It targets ALL regulations. Restaurant health regulations cost money, so those would be eliminated. Zoning regulations that limit certain uses in close proximity to others would also be off the table. We could see adult book stores or pot shops next to schools, oil and gas operations next to hospitals and schools.

Lastly, it’s important to remember that the amendment only applies to private property owners, which in itself increases costs to the public. Governments themselves would still need to meet standards and in fact could face significantly higher costs to do so. For example, federal drinking water standards and wastewater standards would still apply to public water providers; so Denver Water and others would need to provide a safe product. The water flowing into their facilities, however, would be significantly more impaired as a result of the lack of regulations on upstream industries. Guess who will have to pay the increased costs of water treatment to a safe standard? You, the consumer, once again!!

In its purest essence, Amendment 74 requires the people of Colorado to pay industry not to pollute the environment or poison the citizens of the State. Given the extreme threat to public health, our air, water, lands and wildlife, Amendment 74 is the most damaging issue to appear on the ballot in over 20 years. It’s imperative to defeat it in November. Vote NO on Amendment 74.

Appeal Hearing for Martin Marietta Material Permit

In 1998, Boulder County approved a special use permit to allow gravel mining on 881 acres of property owned by Western Mobile in the St. Vrain River Valley east of Lyons. River valleys are often targeted for gravel mining due to the accumulation of gravel and other sediments that build up in floodplains.

In 2011, the land was sold to Martin Marietta Materials Inc., which is now seeking to continue gravel mining operations on the property. Included with the mines, they’re also planning to build a number of accessory structures within the 100 year flood plain of St. Vrain Creek.

The special use permit included a clause that the permit will lapse if no activity authorized under the permit has been conducted for a continuous period of 5 years or more. On April 11, 2018, Boulder County ruled that the permit is still valid. However, prior to the onset of mining operations, the Boulder County Board of Adjustment must hold public hearings on the proposal.

The first of such public hearings is scheduled for Wednesday, June 6, 2018. The appeal hearing begins at 4:00 PM at the Commissioner’s Hearing Room, 1325 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80302.

You can find more information about the public hearing here.

Gravel mining on St. Vrain Creek upstream of Longmont would likely increase the risk of flooding, both within the city and in surrounding areas downstream, which would completely defeat the purpose of the Resilient St. Vrain flood mitigation project that Longmont is currently undertaking. This 2014 conference paper by Anthony R. Ladson and Dean A. Judd explains the short and long-term risks of floodplain gravel mining, particularly the likelihood that such mining may alter the flow of flood water and change river channels. As stated in the paper:

A literature review found 37 examples where rivers had broken into gravel mines and the resulting river response had led to bed and bank erosion and threats to infrastructure.

A river is likely to jump tracks into a gravel pond because water follows the path of least resistance. When this happens, it increases the likelihood of damage. In 2013, this was perfectly illustrated when St. Vrain Creek diverted through the former gravel pits at Pella Crossing Open Space in Hygiene as described in this Times Call letter to the editor by Richard Cargill.

Please consider attending the public hearing on Wednesday, June 6 to voice your concerns regarding Martin Marietta’s gravel mining operation.

Take the Survey for the Longmont Open Space Master Plan

The Longmont Natural Resources department has posted an online survey for citizens to provide their input regarding the Open Space Master Plan.  You can find the survey here .

A second community workshop for the master plan update is scheduled for Thursday, March 22, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM, at the Sunset Campus, 7 South Sunset Street.  You can find more details here .

See you there!

 

Open Space Master Plan – 1st Workshop Notes

If you were unable to attend the first workshop on February 22 for the Longmont Open Space Master Plan update, you can find the notes for that meeting here at this link.

The next workshop will take place on Thursday, March 22, 2018, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM, at the city’s Sunset Campus, 7 South Sunset Street.  The theme of the workshop will be “Examining Options.”

Longmont Open Space Master Plan Update

Natural Resources Announcement:

The department of Public Works and Natural Resources is in the process of updating the City’s Open Space Master Plan.  The intent of this comprehensive plan is to evaluate our community’s open space needs so we can proactively plan for the future.

The City has engaged the services of GreenPlay LLC, a nationally renowned park/open space and recreation consulting firm, to help in analysis and development of the updated plan.  GreenPlay LLC drafted the initial Open Space and Trails Master Plan in 2002.

As a component of the planning process, City staff and GreenPlay are working together to conduct a community needs assessment.  This will take shape in two forms, surveys and workshops.

A survey will be distributed via mail to a random selection of households across Longmont in early-mid February.  This survey will be used to produce a statistically valid sample and results.  If your household receives this mailed survey, your participation is greatly appreciated.  A web questionnaire will also open in mid-late February for the general public until mid-March (watch for another announcement when it is live).

In addition to the surveys, two public workshops will be held on the evenings of Thursday, Feb.22 and Thursday, March 22.  These meetings will consist of a presentation and interactive work stations.  Participants will be asked a variety of questions to evaluate Open Space accomplishments over the past 15 years and to assess the needs of the community that should be addressed in this updated comprehensive plan.

We thank you in advance for participating in our master plan update and encourage youth participation in this process, too.  As well, Spanish translators will be available at both public workshops.  Your input will help guide the future of the City’s Open Space program-improving the quality of life in our community for generations to come.  Find details on the public workshops more at bit.ly/openspaceplan or by calling 303-651-8416.

Link to OS workshop details here.

Link to city announcement:  OS master plan update press-release-announcement