Tag: open space

(Guest Opinion) Shari Malloy: “The what and why of Longmont open space ballot measure 3B”

Published in the Longmont Times Call on 9/27/26

What is 3B and why vote yes? The purpose of ballot measure 3B is to give Longmont taxpayers the right to vote on any sale or transfer of open space — just like parks and water. Longmont’s city charter requires the public vote on proposals involving parks and water before these assets can be sold or conveyed for some new use. Like our parks and water assets, open space is also an asset, so adding it to our charter makes sense. Including the words “open space” here honors voters’ intent to protect these lands and our investments. Adding open space to our charter is simple and straightforward; it does not raise taxes and has no fiscal impact. Including open space does not prevent City Councils from proposing future ideas for open space lands: It just moves the decision into voters’ hands.

Why is 3B necessary? In 2010, Longmont’s Transportation Department needed a small portion of open space that is now in the Dickens Nature Area to extend Martin Street to Ken Pratt Boulevard. This led, in 2011, to City Council passing an unnecessarily open-ended Open Space Disposition Ordinance (14.52.030), which allows Longmont government to dispose of open space land for virtually any public purpose it thinks is important so long as the sale or exchange “results in a net benefit to the Open Space program.” This means future City Councils can basically do whatever they want, while that ordinance is in effect. This ordinance is very opaque, giving the city virtually “carte blanche” ability to build whatever infrastructure it deems worthy on land purchased as open space, as was demonstrated last year when the city attempted to swap land in the flood-prone Tull property for open space land in the Distel property to build city industrial infrastructure. Hundreds of Longmont residents protested, as this is the antithesis of what they had in mind in 2024 when 75% voted yes to extending our open space tax indefinitely.

Fortunately, our current City Council recognized this potentially problematic situation and proposed a simple fix to allow voters more say on such matters in the future. In June they voted 6-1 in favor of referring a ballot measure asking voters to consider adding open space property to our city charter alongside parks and water. In referring this to voters, our current City Council created an opportunity to rebuild trust in Longmont city government by empowering voters. A Yes vote on 3B says we want our open space lands to be respected and protected.

Longmont residents shouldn’t take it for granted that we will always have mostly reasonable people in charge of and on City Council. The “net benefit” term in the current ordinance is a dangerous slippery slope! Until we supersede the current Open Space Disposition Ordinance through this simple city charter change, our open space program remains in jeopardy.

Why does it matter? Preserving our open space land is critical to Longmont’s ecological, economic, recreational, personal and cultural well-being. Longmont residents love our open space lands and program. In addition to the overwhelming support to tax ourselves, every city satisfaction survey demonstrates residents place high value on our open space.

Why now? Locally, one only need look at all the development happening to realize the importance of protecting our open space. Purchasing, preserving, maintaining and enhancing Open Space is essential to the riparian health of our St. Vrain and Lefthand Creeks and other waterways. Wildlife needs habitat to survive. Open space provides this. Pollinators need native plants to thrive. Open space provides this. People need open space for our well-being. Open space provides this.

Trust in government is abysmal these days. A yes vote on 3B helps us to have faith in our Longmont government. In a time of political discourse where many people feel frustrated and helpless, the practice of granting voters’ agency and participatory decision-making merits commendation.

Shari is a member of Longmont Friends of Open Space and retired Special Ed teacher with SVVSD.

7/28/26 City Council Meeting

City Council will be discussing and voting on Longmont Friends of Open Space’s (Stand With Out St Vrain Creek) recommendations for shoring up Open Space protections and preventing another Distel/Tull Open Space disposition debacle on Tuesday, July 28th at 7:00pm.

We are asking supporters of these recommendations to show up for the Public Invited To Be Heard portion of the meeting (at the beginning of the meeting) wearing green to show your support.

CANCELLED 6/30/26 City Council Meeting

City Council will be discussing and voting on Longmont Friends of Open Space’s (Stand With Out St Vrain Creek) recommendations for shoring up Open Space protections and preventing another Distel/Tull Open Space disposition debacle on Tuesday, June 30th at 7:00pm.

We are asking supporters of these recommendations to show up for the Public Invited To Be Heard portion of the meeting (at the beginning of the meeting) wearing green to show your support.

City Council Meeting June 9, 2026 at 7pm

City Council will be voting on whether or not to move forward with a ballot measure that would amend the City’s Charter to add “Open Space properties” to section 13.2. If approved by voters, this amendment would prevent the sale or disposition of Open Space properties without the approval of Longmont voters.

We are asking that people show up to City Council on June 9th at 7pm wearing green to show their support for putting this measure on the ballot this November.

If you are unable to attend, please send a message to City Council using this form: https://longmontcityxm.gov1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4PEnCSjZVVwit8i asking them to go with Option 1 from the Meeting packet: “Direct staff to prepare a ballot ordinance for consideration that would place a Charter amendment question on the November 2026 ballot and identify a preferred ordinance
reading schedule.”

Longmont Times Call: City moves ahead with compost planning

Longmont will hear from Boulder County later this fall before deciding
where a future facility could be built

October 15, 2025

BY LONDON LYLE
LLYLE@PRAIRIEMOUNTAINMEDIA.COM

Longmont will move forward with exploring a regional composting facility in partnership with Boulder County, following a unanimous City Council vote on Oct. 7 to formally end negotiations over the controversial proposed Distel-Tull land swap.

With the land swap proposal ruled out, the city is turning its attention to new composting solutions, including a potential site on the Tull property, though no location has been finalized. City staff plan to coordinate with Boulder County for a public presentation later this fall on the region’s composting needs and options.

The land exchange would have transferred 65 acres of the city-owned Distel property, currently designated as protected open space, to the Utilities Department for municipal use. In return, Longmont’s Open Space program would have acquired a portion of the Tull property, a more ecologically sensitive parcel along Boulder Creek. The swap was seen by some as a way to meet the city’s growing need for a local composting facility.

But after months of delay and growing opposition from residents and wildlife advocates, the plan collapsed.

City Manager Harold Dominguez told council members at the Oct. 7 meeting that the gravel operator, Amrize, had failed to respond to numerous attempts for information from the city and recommended that the city cease negotiations. “The deal flipped on its head, and it’s more advantageous for us to not move forward,” he said.

Amrize could not be reached for this story.

Mayor Pro-Tem Susie Hidalgo-Fahring made the motion to stop considering Distel as an option and to continue pursuing composting efforts with the county. The motion passed 7-0. Councilmembers Sean McCoy and Diane Crist expressed interest in continuing discussions with Boulder County but stressed the need for more information before committing to a specific site. The city is expected to present to
the council on potential composting plans, including the Tull site as an option, at the public presentation later this fall. No formal date has been set for this presentation.

The Distel property will remain permanently protected open space.

(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.