Tag: Distel

(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.

DELAYED: City Council Meeting: Distel-Tull Land Swap

Due to negotiations with Holcim, City Council voted to delay the vote on the land swap until further notice. 

City Council will be reviewing and voting on whether or not to approve the Distel-Tull land swap on Tuesday, August 12th at 7pm.

Please consider attending for the public invited to be heard portion of the meeting (at the beginning of the meeting) and wearing green to show support for our Open Spaces.

If you are unable to attend, or would like to take action in addition to attending the City Council meeting, please contact our City Council members and tell them your thoughts. This only takes 5 minutes. You can be short and sweet. https://longmontcityxm.gov1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4PEnCSjZVVwit8i

Letters: Remove Distel from any/all future development plans

Published in the Times Call July 29, 2025

In January Longmont City Council directed staff to pursue a partnership with Boulder County who wants to build a large-scale composting operation, but use [Longmont] land. Longmont Public Works staff proposed a land exchange where land purchased by Open Space tax dollars (Distel) would be exchanged for land owned by Public Works (Tull). The proposal at Distel carves out just 8 acres for
Boulder County’s compost infrastructure and 57 acres for City of Longmont infrastructure.

Public Works staff has been merchandising this proposal as a solution for the real need for compost infrastructure. Only 12% of the Distel Open Space property is appropriated for compost and 88% for city infrastructure; including relocating the fire training center and building a driving range for city vehicles. This proposal presents as a bait and switch for the City to build industrial infrastructure on
land designated as Open Space.

I’m a member of Longmont Friends of Open Space (standwithourstvraincreek.com) We are residents committed to preserving St. Vrain Creek and all our Open Spaces. We initiated and campaigned for the extension of our Open Space tax ballot measure last November (passed with 74% approval). Voters supported taxing ourselves in perpetuity because we want our Open Space lands respected, protected and not developed. That includes not being bartered or traded for development. If you’re one of those voters, please contact City Council and suggest they remove Distel open space property from any/all development considerations of any kind.

We support partnering with Boulder County for regional compost infrastructure. I personally have advocated for decades for regional compost infrastructure. City Council’s initial direction was well intentioned. It’s unfortunate city staff opportunistically used green washing sales tactics and used Open Space as a commodity. Council has lost a lot of public trust. Removing Distel from this hot mess
would help repair some of that.

Shari Malloy, Longmont

Letters: Longmont Distel-Tull swap

Published in the Times Call on July 31, 2025

I have been recycling and composting for many decades. I am firmly in favor of a community-based composting facility, but the proposed Distel-Tull property swap is not the right location for one.

Swapping open space land in this manner sets a very bad precedent. As a member of the public whose taxes help pay for open space purchases, I would consider such a land swap to be a huge violation of my trust!

Bald eagles nest along the confluence of St. Vrain and Boulder creeks, just west of the proposed composting site. The area is also a winter roosting spot for both bald and golden eagles, and it provides rare wintertime open water feeding grounds for migratory waterfowl, including trumpeter and tundra swans and many species of ducks. The presence of a big composting operation nearby would be disruptive to these birds and other wildlife.

Then, there is the risk of flooding. Years ago, my son’s Boy Scout troop planned a weekend camping trip close to the Distell and Tull properties. The boys packed up their gear, excited about a big group camp. This was July, monsoon season. On first morning of this camping trip, there were three funnel clouds over Longmont. We parents got an emergency call that we needed to go pick up our kids. Everyone woke up with 2 inches of water in their tents!

It was just a normal monsoon rain. Now, imagine that site during the floods of 2013! Imagine if it flooded again with a big composting facility on it. The risk of water contamination is unacceptable.

Again, I’m in favor of a community composting facility, but not at the risk of losing bird habitat, of disrupting birds and wildlife, of setting bad land use precedents, and not on a site prone to flooding.

Kat Bradley-Bennett, Longmont

Letters: Distel property not suitable for city uses

Published in the Times Call on 7/25/25

It is very short sighted to see the currently blighted east Longmont Distel property as simply an industrial zone. While significant remediation of this site is needed, it will remain an unsuitable site for compost, fire training and other city maintenance facilities.

Rock gravel and sand deposits desired by quarry companies occur as deposits of ancient river beds. They are thus generally near groundwater aquifers and modern day floodways. This property is located between the St Vrain River and Boulder Creek and close to their confluence. The Boulder County floodplain map, which extends out into Weld County (where this property is located), seems to indicate that at least part of this property is in the actual FEMA floodway. Extra effort would need to be made to isolate the compost piles such that, during processing, potential contaminants did not spread into the local environment. Contaminants could include microbiota, microplastics, heavy metals, persistent pesticides, herbicides and their potentially toxic breakdown products. The compost leachate could also be carriers of any unremediated pollutants from past industrial use of this property.

If the Distel property is properly restored, it can join our premium local open space portfolio along with Golden Ponds, Walden Pond and Pella Crossing, which were originally quarries and are now highly regarded assets for both wildlife and human activities.

Of special concern is the difficulty many such facilities are having in keeping inappropriate materials out of the compost stream and then in distributing the finished compost. For example, online reports indicate that Chula Vista, California, one of the places visited by Longmont officials and touted as a shining example of composting, is not able to distribute the bulk of the compost materials produced.

Composting is a great idea, but one that requires much careful planning.

Gaythia Weis, Longmont

Letters: Criteria are clear on how open space should be used

Published in the Times Call on 7/24/25

At the April 9, 2024 regular session meeting, City Council approved a motion by Mayor Peck, directing staff “to engage in conversations Boulder County is having on a regional composting facility.” It was an ambiguously worded motion, but it would have far reaching consequences for our open space program, because it set the stage for an unprecedented proposal of disposing open space property for development.

Six months prior to the mayor’s motion, in a Oct. 12, 2023 email (Subject: Open Space Parcel for Composting Facility), the mayor and Public Works staff discussed requirements outlined in the municipal code “to remove the Distel property out from the Open Space program (and move the Tull property in) for the purpose of building a compost facility.” There was no mention in the email that Distel would be difficult to ecologically restore, an excuse that the city would later conjure up to justify the land swap. There was also no discussion in the email about the potential environmental risks of a composting facility on bald eagles and people living near Distel. The focus was finding a location for Boulder County’s composting facility.

In January 2025, the city publicly revealed the Distel Tull land swap plan, which included the composting facility and multiple city development projects at Distel.

It’s a violation of the public trust for the city to manipulate our open space program to serve its development aspirations. Our open space goals and criteria are clear on how our open space should be used. It unquestionably doesn’t include siting a composting facility on these properties. For the sake of defending the integrity of our open space program, City Council should strongly and soundly reject the land swap deal.

Ruby Bowman, Longmont

Letters: Longmont City Council should say no to Tull/Distel plan

Published in the Times Call 7/23/25

The Longmont City Council should say no to the Tull/Distel land exchange and the idea of locating a compost facility in the Tull/Distel area. Some of the reasons:

• As a resident of Longmont since 1997, I have voted for every open space tax. The land exchange would violate the spirit of the open space program, and I might not have voted for 3A last fall if I had known this was coming.

• Neither the county nor the city have made a serious attempt to address concerns raised by wildlife advocates about the impact of a compost facility and other development on the nearby confluence bald eagle roost. My assumption is that they do not want to undertake a formal impact assessment because they expect it to be unfavorable to development in the area.

• The Tull property may be a “Plan B” location for proponents of the composting facility and other development. The only advantage to this idea is that it does not involve a land exchange with open space. There is still the same potential for harm to bald eagles and other wildlife. Add to that the fact that Tull is in the floodway and it becomes even more unsuitable.

• Boulder County’s compost facility feasibility study update of 7/7/2025 contains the following statements: “Phase 2 of the study includes site exploration … The feasibility study will primarily focus on the Distel site.” Clearly they have already decided that Distel is a feasible site, even though they have not completed the feasibility study and have not disclosed other sites under consideration. If Distel is taken off the table, I expect they will focus on Tull. So much for transparency.

We should give our neighbors in Weld County a break and find a composting site in Boulder County.

Chris Boardman, Longmont

Letter: Disposing of open space is a violation of the public trust

Published in the Longmont Leader on July 15, 2025

I’m writing to urge Longmont’s City Council to defeat the City staff’s proposal to allow industrial development on open space. Longmont residents voted to tax themselves for open space 25 years ago. And for 25 years there has been no development on land purchased as open space. There’s no reason to change that now.

When we passed the Longmont Open Space Tax, we voted to keep land free from development in perpetuity. We didn’t vote to keep land in reserve for future development. And the open space in question is in the middle of hundreds of acres of protect rural land. It includes: Farmland. River corridor. Wildlife habitat.

The current proposal sets a horrible precedent that it is okay to dispose of open space. And that precedent, I’m afraid, will be used in the future to further degrade the open space that we taxed ourselves to protect.

Disposing of open space is a violation of the public trust and the City Council should avoid that at all cost.

Please join me in telling the City Council NO to open space development!

Sincerely,

Jana Mendez
Former State Senator – 1983-1992
Former Boulder County Commissioner – 1993-2002