Home › News › Boulder & County News
Boulder considers pulling back on Valmont Butte sale
Some suggest solar field, compost pile
Photo by Paul Aiken
Valmont Butte
STORY TOOLS
More Boulder & County News
- Wildlife officers kill mother bear in south Boulder
- Curbside composting stalls over bear concerns
- Man clinging to life after fall at Eldorado Canyon State Park
Share and Enjoy [?]
Moving forward with the sale of a Boulder landmark might not be the best option after all, the City Council indicated Thursday night, after hearing that the city should expect to lose a substantial amount of money if the sale goes through as planned.
The city has tentatively agreed to sell off 71 acres of the 101-acre Valmont Butte site in northeast Boulder to the nonprofit Trust for Public Lands Valmont Butte, so long as the groups can agree on a price and other terms still under negotiation.
However, a newly released appraisal of the site -- which the city purchased in 2000 for about $2.58 million -- indicates the property is now worth between $2.43 million and $2.56 million.
On top of dealing with a depreciated land value, the city has already committed to invest nearly $1 million more into environmental cleanup and other restorative efforts at the site by the end of the year. According to city documents, there is no way for the sale of the property to recoup all the costs of purchasing it.
"This is becoming a very big hole in terms of dollars," Councilwoman Suzy Ageton said.
If the entire 71 acres were to be sold, the city estimates the monetary loss would be about $867,000 if a gold mill on the site were given landmark status before the sale, and $737,000 if the mill were not included.
A second option, to sell off only the western or eastern half of the butte, would mean the city would lose between $2.02 million and $2.15 million. Under that scenario, the city would still own one-half of the property, estimated to be worth between $1.15 million and $1.28 million.
The figures led Councilman Matt Appelbaum, and others, to suggest keeping the land for a city project -- like building a solar farm or compost pile.
"We're out of so much money, and the land is valuable enough to the city, that I don't see any point to selling it," he said. "I'm happy to keep it if we're going to do something with it."
The council previously considered building a new fire training facility on the property, or creating a biosolids treatment facility, but killed those plans in 2006 after an outcry from historic preservationists and American Indian tribes.
The butte is home to a cemetery that holds the remains of some of the 19th century's first settlers. American Indians consider it a sacred site, and tribes have used it for rites and rituals. The site also holds a historic fluorspar and gold mill constructed in the 1930s.
Hillary Merritt, a project manager for the Trust for Public Lands, has said her organization hopes to buy the property and then sell it to community groups and tribes.
Doug Newcomb, a property manager for Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, said he thinks the nonprofit would keep the land the way it is.
"They don't buy and sell for money," Newcomb said. "They're not looking to sell off a 5-acre home site."
Mayor Shaun McGrath said it's at least worth waiting out the negotiation phase to see how much the city could get for the site before passing final judgment.
"We're not going to do it if we don't know that it's going to be protected in perpetuity," he said about a sale, noting also that a solar project would be an "intriguing idea."
City staffers will report back to the council with options on how to move forward with or without a sale at its June 3 meeting.
Contact Camera Staff Writer Heath Urie at 303-473-1328 or urieh@dailycamera.com.
Posted by BDRSth on May 16, 2008 at 5:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We've already tried to "do something with it", Councilmember Appelbaum. The site is riddled with difficult, if not impossible obstacles.
I don't understand why the city should push another million into it for clean up. If TPL wants to buy it, just set an agreeable price and walk away. Stop wasting our money.
Just get rid of it. Our city is clearly over its head in this one.
Posted by aprilsmile on May 16, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
vki: what helped out the developer and who was the developer. was is the current sale or original purchase that helped out a developer?
Posted by aprilsmile on May 16, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
if the city did a solar project, couldn't they make money selling the energy back.
Posted by Spudnik on May 16, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And who said that money doesn't talk?
Posted by BNB on May 16, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like a good buy there - I want to use their real estate broker for my next major purchase.
Why don't they just designate it open space. We don;t have enough of that yet.
Posted by driveby_poster on May 16, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The prospect of rolling the dice with tax money has not stopped council before, what is so different this time?
Posted by sidd on May 16, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Get rid of it, it’s just a money pit..
There is a lot nicer land around that isn’t polluted and doesn’t have so many problems.
Posted by EvanFromHeaven on May 16, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Radioactive compost for the masses! Great idea, Matt!
Posted by jgarcia on May 16, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I did not know the city was in the business of making money. It is supposed to be in the business of collecting taxes to *spend* it for the management and the ***betterment*** of the city. They happily spend almost 700K (I think that was the number) with a bunch a prairie dogs digging in a toxic pool, yet a landmark, a sacred Indian ground is not worth spending (by a lost) may be a million. I do not get these people!!!!
Posted by MicMacGirl on May 16, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The city council smokes too much of their own dope.....
Posted by SoBoPop on May 16, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe the cost was $600,000 to fix the cap and remove the PDs to a safe location this year. This is the second attempt to do this in as many years. Last year the cost was more like $500K.
Posted by jgarcia on May 16, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SoBoPop, Thanks, I knew it was about that much.
Thus, ~ 1 million dollars to save prairie dogs but they recoil at spending lets say, 2 million, on making the butter clean and transferring it to a non-profit that should ensure the preservation forever.
This makes no sense!
Posted by SoBoPop on May 16, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Are there any businesspeople on council? I'd like to sell these folks about 25,000 bear proof compost cans @ $750 each. They'll be 'Free Market' bins made of recycled Yugos.
Staff, please contact me at www.it'sonlytaxmoney.com.
Posted by jgarcia on May 16, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know what I love about Boulder? the double standard. I just came back from getting a coffee and went by the WholeFoods at 30th. They are tearing down the old theater with a big backhoe. In my mind I can hear the council talking about the green standards and how home owners are now required by law to de-construct in remodeling, yet this building is being teared apart and truck after truck is loaded with a schizophrenic mix of steel, wires (good copper), concrete, etc. I recognize that this material may be taken to some recycling place (God, I hope so) but the process is certainly demolition and no de-construction.
If I were a kid again, that will be so much fun ...
All government, democrats or republican are the same, full of sanctimonious talk, beating their chest on visceral matters, yet willing to sacrifice in the altar of the all mighty dollar.
OK, may be no so mighty these days ;-)
Posted by Manioca35 on May 16, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know what would be really helpful? A MAP, so I could know exactly what we are talking about here. I rarely complain about the quality of Camera writer's journalism but as far as I can tell this is an article about 70 acres of land somewhere up the hill and to the right a ways.
Posted by KathrynK on May 16, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Manioca35 - If you go down 55th to Valmont and look to the east (of the trailor park) you can see a weird-looking mountain/hill. That is where it is located.
Posted by jgarcia on May 16, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Manioca35,
Copy and paste into maps.google.com the following latitude and longitude:
40 1 50.56, -105 12 51.74
It is right by the Stazio Ballfields
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index....
Posted by the_daily_tracks_what_you_read on May 16, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since a "tribe" is involved, wont the land eventually turn into a legal casino..
Posted by hatmonger on May 16, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There have already been representations that it won't be used for gambling.
Posted by The_Insinuator on May 19, 2008 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll get Whipper to take care of it.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.