Longmont open-space package heads to June 30 council review, with possible 2026 ballot measure
City staff are preparing three responses to the Distel-Tull land-exchange fallout: tighter rules for disposing of open space, a conservation-easement requirement on acquisitions and possible charter language that could go to voters this fall.
Longmont officials are preparing a three-part package of open-space protections for City Council review on June 30 after an April 7 council motion directing staff to draft three measures: tighter rules for disposing of open space, a requirement to pursue conservation easements on open-space acquisitions and possible charter language adding "Open Space" to voter-approval protections that now cover parklands and water rights.
According to staff materials for the June 8 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, the proposals were scheduled for advisory-board review June 8, an informational presentation to council June 9 and a return to council June 30. Staff said the timing matters because any charter question would need to be prepared before the August deadline for the November 2026 ballot.
The package follows the Distel-Tull land-exchange controversy. On its project page, the city says the 2025 proposal would have swapped the Open Space-owned Distel property with the Utilities-owned Tull property so Distel could be considered for a future composting facility. The city also says council later voted 7-0 on Oct. 7, 2025, to stop negotiations on the Distel property with Amrize.
The clearest part of the current record is that staff are preparing three separate policy actions, not a single symbolic statement. The staff packet says those are:
- updating the language of Longmont's 2019 open-space disposition ordinance;
- codifying the council's 2015 verbal direction to pursue conservation easements on open-space properties; and
- drafting a ballot measure that would ask voters whether to add "Open Space" to Charter section 13.2, which the materials describe as governing sale or conveyance of city parks and water rights without voter approval.
If council adopts the first two items as ordinances, they would change city policy and formalize a direction that staff materials say has existed verbally since 2015. The charter proposal would be a bigger step because it could extend voter-approval protections themselves.
But the available record also shows limits. The public materials describe what staff are preparing; they do not include final ordinance text or final ballot language. And because the charter item has not been formally referred, it remains a possible ballot measure unless and until council votes to send it to voters.
The June 9 City Council agenda listed the issue as a general-business item on open-space protections, indicating council was being briefed before the June 30 return.
Advocates are pushing for the changes as more than procedural cleanup after the land-swap debate. In rationale included in the June 8 packet, Longmont Friends of Open Space argued the measures would formalize voter intent, reduce future staff and council burden and help rebuild public trust.
What remains unclear is how much agreement exists on the details. The packet describes unanimous council support for developing the three proposals after the April 7 motion, but the available materials do not show whether council members agree on how far the disposition ordinance should go, whether every acquisition would carry a conservation easement without exception or how broad any charter language should be.
The next decision point is June 30, when council is expected to review draft language and decide whether to advance policy changes and whether to move any charter question toward the 2026 general-election ballot.