Public commenters press council on street closures, open‑space protections and ranked‑choice voting

Multiple residents used the public‑comment portion of the Aug. 12 Longmont City Council meeting to raise three recurring concerns: potential permanent closures near the railroad at Fifth Avenue and Atwood; protection of city open space and questions about future land exchanges; and calls for a study session on ranked‑choice voting.

Fifth Avenue / Atwood pedestrian access

Sharon O’Leary, co‑chair of the Historic East Side Neighborhood (534 Emory Street), urged council not to permanently close pedestrian access at Fifth Avenue and the Atwood railroad crossing. She cited Colorado Revised Statutes and Longmont’s Transportation Mobility Plan language about maintaining safe multimodal connections and said a recent city communication indicated the city would remove all pedestrian access at the crossing. O’Leary asked council to find funding to keep the streets open and said closures should not divide neighborhoods.

Open space, the Bigelow/Distal issue

Jamie Seaman (517 Independence Drive) addressed a prior council discussion about the Distal/Bigelow land exchange. Seaman asked council to reject a land exchange that could repurpose open space for public works or industrial uses, urged strengthening protections for public open space in the municipal code, and recommended adding open‑space disposition provisions similar to Boulder’s municipal code that enable a petition and ballot process if voters wish to approve a disposal of permanently protected open space.

Ranked‑choice voting supporters

Two speakers from the grassroots Ranked Choice Voting for Longmont group, Summit Lau (1009 Pratt Street) and Dagny Dash (address on transcript 1632 Hideaway Court), thanked council for a previously approved motion to hold a study session on ranked‑choice voting and asked council to pursue a study session as the next step. The group reported more than 600 petition signatures in seven months and argued a study session would allow council to evaluate mechanics and public implications before any ballot measure.

Other public comments and takeaways

Speakers praised the city’s internship program and Longmont Public Media, discussed neighborhood block‑party funding and shared perspectives about voter rights and broader civic matters. Council acknowledged the comments; several items (for example, a request for advisory board input on definitions of ‘‘net benefit’’ for open‑space disposition) were discussed elsewhere on the agenda and were later tabled or referred for further staff work.

What council did

Council did not take immediate policy action on the street closure or on the open‑space disposition beyond hearing public comment; the earlier agenda item to ask advisory boards to discuss a ‘‘net benefit’’ definition for open‑space disposition was withdrawn by a motion on the record and will be reconsidered later if reintroduced by council. Council members repeatedly noted state statute and local code when discussing the legal framework for public streets and public open space.