The Longmont City Council has postponed its first reading and public hearing on the controversial Tull-Distel land swap, originally scheduled for this Tuesday. Instead, the council will hold an executive session regarding “Holcim mineral interests and operations and open space property interests.”
Holcim — formerly Aggregate Industries — sold both properties to the city in 2019.
New map revealed by city staff at the city of Longmont’s July 16 Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting
The proposed land exchange concerns two properties in unincorporated Weld County. The city already owns both properties — the “swap” would be between city departments. The Distel property is part of the city’s open space program, while the Tull property is under the city’s Utilities and Public Works Department. If the exchange is approved, the Tull property would be repositioned under the city’s open space program. The Distel property would be seriously considered as a site for a future composting facility, which could help Boulder County reach its sustainability goals, according to the Boulder County Public Works Department.
Proponents of the Distel property composting facility argue that the Distel property is already being used for gravel mining, making it more suitable for industrial purposes. Opponents argue that open space taxpayer dollars should be reserved for open space purposes, and raise concerns over noise and light pollution.
Several opponents spoke June 23 to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, which then voted 3-2 to reject a land swap ordinance as it is currently proposed.
At a Sustainability Advisory Board meeting on Wednesday, city staff presented a scenario that would increase open space by 5 acres and “preserve the most ecologically sensitive areas along the St. Vrain and Boulder creek corridors … and expand riparian habitat on the Tull property.”
Wildlife advocates have raised concerns about how the construction of a Boulder County composting facility could negatively impact bald eagle habitat near Longmont’s Distel property as well, suggesting that bald eagles nesting near the composting facility could begin eating scraps from the compost rather than hunting, eventually losing their natural abilities to hunt for food and sustain themselves.
Dana Bove, retired federal geologist and founder of the nonprofit Front Range Eagle Studies, an organization dedicated to the study and conservation of nesting and winter roosting bald eagles in the northern Front Range, has expressed concerns about the Tull-Distel land swap’s potential negative effect on bald eagle populations from the start.
At the June advisory board meeting, he pointed out that the area just east of the town where Boulder Creek and St. Vrain River come together has been a vital winter refuge for bald eagles for decades. And yet, their population has already been experiencing a documented “clear and troubling decline,” he said, arguing that they don’t need any additional stressors.
Kara Van Hoose, Northeast Region public information officer for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, told the Times-Call that it’s possible a compost facility that allows animal parts could attract eagles.
“If a compost facility allows animal parts, it’s possible the eagles will choose to feed on scraps there,” Van Hoose said in an email. “In talking with our avian researchers, they are not aware of any permanent altered behavior in eagles in such cases.
“Eagles would not forgo a prey opportunity elsewhere because of the facility’s presence. The innate hunting drive would remain. If a compost facility does not allow animal parts, then the eagles would not be attracted to it as they are carnivores,” she added.
Boulder County’s current composting guidelines do not permit the composting of animal parts.
Additionally, the proposed area on the Distel property for the composting facility lies more than half a mile from any recorded bald eagle nesting and roosting habitats, which meets the buffer recommendations from state and federal wildlife agencies, according to CPW. Bove said that buffer requirements set by state and federal wildlife agencies are not always adequate.
Longmont city code permits certain reassignments of open space land if proper reimbursements are made, a process detailed in the city’s 2011 Open Space Disposition Code. For Weld County’s part, their planning staff has confirmed that composting is a potentially allowable use on agricultural-zoned properties, such as the Distel site, through a use by special review process. They cited A1 Organics’ smaller composting facility at 16350 County Road near Eaton, which currently operates under a USR in unincorporated Weld County in an agricultural zone.
“The city of Longmont spans both Boulder and Weld counties. As such, a composting facility serving Longmont residents would benefit community members from both counties. If the process moves forward, the city looks forward to working with both Boulder and Weld counties to advance our shared composting goals,” read a June project update on Longmont’s website.
While a new composting facility in the region could help accomplish some of the targets outlined within Boulder County’s 2023 Sustainability Plan — including its zero waste goal, prevention of landfilling and greenhouse gas emissions, shortening hauling distances for waste, and improving land health with finished compost — finding the most efficient balance of land use has proven to be a challenge.
Boulder County’s sustainability plan outlines the importance of land use in its sustainability, climate action and resilience plan, placing emphasis on a compact land-use pattern.
“A compact land-use pattern focuses growth in urban areas, which helps to avoid sprawl and ensures efficient use of land and natural resources, while also preserving farmland, open space, and wildlife habitat,” the plan reads.
At the June meeting, city staff argued that the land exchange would ultimately increase the total acreage of open space, accelerate restoration efforts and enhance habitat connectivity. They also noted that any facility on the site would require separate environmental and planning approvals.
But skeptics said a net gain of five acres is small and questioned whether the swap would set a precedent for industrial development on land residents believed would remain protected.
Daniel Wolford, who served as Longmont’s open space manager from 2017 to 2021, said that open space land “shouldn’t be treated as a bargaining chip.” He expressed concern about the message it sends to voters who supported the open space tax extension in 2024.
“Even if the amount of open space increases, it raises trust issues,” Wolford said. “The public needs to know that when they vote for open space, it’s protected.”
He also noted that the Distel property was not acquired with the intention of later reassigning it. “The idea was to preserve that property long term, not to hand it off for a public works facility.”
PRAB listened to numerous individuals speak out against using open space tax dollars for other purposes.
“Moving or exchanging existing open space property is not what the voters of Longmont want,” former Longmont Mayor Roger Lange said at the meeting. “Longmont voters share the belief that existing open space should be left alone and not be a candidate for any future property exchange.”
Several speakers cited the results of a 2024 ballot measure in which more than 70% of voters approved extending the city’s open space sales tax.
“They did so with the understanding that these lands would be preserved, not reassigned for industrial use,” said Jeff Lester, a Longmont resident and member of Longmont Friends of Open Space, a group of Longmont residents who advocate on behalf of open space and public land.
The city disputes this, with spokesman Scott Rochat noting in an email to the Times-Call that open space has been repurposed to meet other community purposes in the past, citing an instance in 2009 when the street fund reimbursed the open space fund for 2.57 acres of Dickens Nature Area (open space) for the purpose of extending Martin Street south of First Avenue to what is now the Martin Street Bridge.
“After this occurred, the city council decided to formalize and codify that process, adopting the current Open Space Disposition code, Chapter 14.52, in 2011. Another example came after the adoption of that code, when the council approved the disposition of 5.94 acres of open space in 2013 for the extension of Boston Avenue from Martin Street to the west,” Rochat wrote.
Additionally, Rochat noted that in the past, Longmont open space was purchased with general funds since the open space fund had not been created, citing Sandstone Ranch as an example.
“The Distel property was purchased with the Open Space Fund. The Tull property was purchased with various funds including the Open Space Fund, the Water Fund, the Sanitary Sewer Fund, the Street Fund and the Stormwater Fund,” he added.
Ethan Augreen, who serves on Longmont’s Sustainability Advisory Board, published an article on July 18 analyzing the revised compost site footprint. He noted that the new maps reveal the potential composting area at Distel is 15.3 acres, significantly smaller than earlier estimates.
He argued that smaller facilities tend to be more environmentally manageable and expressed hope that the revised plan could alleviate some public concerns. However, he also warned that the city must provide clearer guardrails for future land use decisions if it wishes to maintain public trust.
While some speakers voiced tentative support for the proposal, many said it should be postponed or conditioned on the results of the compost feasibility study and completion of a phase two environmental assessment.
In 2019, Boulder County conducted the first phase of an environmental site assessment for the Distel and Tull properties, concluding that additional investigation is needed to evaluate whether toxic environmental conditions exist on the site. Phase two of the study, which is underway, is expected to conclude in September, according to a July 7 news release from Boulder County.
Several expressed concerns about possible groundwater contamination and traffic impacts, particularly for rural Weld County residents living near the site.
PRAB members discussed those concerns at length. Board member Scott Conlin abstained from the vote. Board member Nick Novello was absent from the meeting.
After deliberation, the board voted 3-2 to recommend that the City Council reject the current version of the land swap. Thomas Davis, Erin Angel and Brandi Reyes voted in favor; Sam Libby and Hannah Mulroy were opposed. While the vote is advisory, the City Council has final authority over whether to proceed.
The council is now expected to take up the land exchange on Aug. 12.