An Open Letter to Buc-ee’s Leadership

A group of Tri-Lakes residents has written to the chief executive of Buc-ee’s asking the company to abandon its Monument Hill site — not on the grounds that the travel center is unwelcome, but on the grounds that it is a poor investment. The letter, offered to The Independent for publication, argues the case on construction costs, winter conditions on the Palmer Divide, a fuel corridor it says is already crowded, and the water and wildlife constraints of the parcel itself. It is reproduced below in full, with the authors’ own sources.

To Arch Aplin III and the Buc-ee’s leadership team:

This is not an anti-Buc-ee’s letter, and it is not an anti-business argument. Buc-ee’s has built an unusually successful travel-center model, created a nationally recognized brand, and demonstrated that a new location can generate jobs, tax revenue, tourism, and substantial economic activity. The question is not whether Buc-ee’s should continue to grow. The question is whether Monument Hill in northern El Paso County, Colorado is the best place to deploy the company’s next major increment of capital.

We believe a disciplined review of the economics, operating environment, competitive landscape, infrastructure constraints, and natural-resource impacts points in another direction. Buc-ee’s has other opportunities where the company could receive a warmer welcome, build for less, operate with fewer location-specific risks, and bring greater incremental value to an underserved interstate market.

Mr. Aplin recently emphasized that Buc-ee’s has “a lot of opportunities” and that conservative, business-friendly states with strong workforces and leadership that appreciates the company’s investment make a meaningful difference in expansion decisions.[1] That philosophy deserves to be applied to Monument Hill as a business decision, not a political argument.

To Buc-ee’s financial leadership: reconsider the next dollar, not the last dollar

Buc-ee’s EPCO LLC has already purchased approximately 53.4 acres at Monument Hill for more than $10 million.[2] That is a significant investment, but it is also a sunk acquisition cost. The more important capital-allocation question is what happens to the next tens of millions of dollars required to entitle, engineer, build, staff, and operate a 74,000-square-foot travel center with approximately 120 fueling positions and nearly 800 parking spaces.

A site that initially appears attractive because of I-25 visibility must be evaluated on total development cost, time to revenue, operating reliability, competitive intensity, and risk-adjusted return. Monument Hill carries unusual exposure in each of those categories.

Colorado Springs-area construction economics are not especially favorable

Colorado Springs also presents a comparatively expensive construction environment. A consistent 2026 city-level construction-cost benchmark places Colorado Springs at an index of 105 with an estimated construction labor rate of $32.57 per hour. By comparison, the same dataset places Oklahoma City at 84 and $24.17 per hour, Des Moines at 84 and $25.28, and Sioux Falls at 83 and $24.17.[3] These are planning benchmarks rather than bids for a Buc-ee’s, but the direction is clear: each of the alternative markets considered below has a materially lower labor and overall construction-cost environment.

The broader price environment reinforces the point. BLS data for the Mountain division showed consumer prices continuing to rise in 2025, while Colorado’s Department of Transportation maintains a dedicated construction cost index because infrastructure inputs have their own regional escalation dynamics.[4] Buc-ee’s should compare actual contractor pricing, site-work requirements, utilities, roadway obligations, and labor availability across candidate markets before allowing the existing land purchase to dictate the next investment decision.

Monument Hill adds a recurring weather and traffic-reliability risk

The proposed site is not simply along I-25. It sits at Monument Hill and the Palmer Divide, one of the most weather-exposed portions of the Front Range interstate corridor. The crest of Monument Hill is above 7,300 feet, and Monument receives substantially more snow than nearby Colorado Springs. Published climate summaries place Monument near 111 inches of annual snowfall, compared with roughly 33 inches in Colorado Springs.[5]

More important to a travel-center operator than annual snowfall is highway reliability. CDOT repeatedly identifies I-25 north of Colorado Springs and the Palmer Divide as a focus area for snow-packed roads, blowing snow, reduced visibility, hazardous travel, traction restrictions, and potential safety closures. In March 2025, CDOT warned that blizzard conditions would heavily affect travel over the Palmer Divide and told motorists to prepare for possible closures. In March 2026, CDOT again identified the heaviest Front Range road impacts along I-25 south of Castle Rock and over the Palmer Divide.[6]

That creates a distinctive revenue risk for a business whose economics depend on dependable interstate throughput. Severe weather can reduce discretionary travel, delay or divert traffic, complicate employee access, increase snow-removal and maintenance costs, and periodically make the very interstate traffic Buc-ee’s is designed to capture less reliable. Some alternative markets, including Sioux Falls and Des Moines, also experience significant winter weather. The distinction at Monument Hill is the combination of winter exposure with a 7,300-foot divide on the primary interstate approach. Oklahoma City, for example, averages roughly 9 inches of annual snowfall, while Des Moines averages roughly 32 inches.[7] Weather should therefore be modeled as an operating and traffic-availability variable, not merely as a construction-code issue.

The local fuel and travel-services market is already unusually saturated

None of the existing businesses near Monument should be confused with Buc-ee’s. Buc-ee’s scale, brand, food program, merchandise, restrooms, and destination appeal are distinct. The financial point is different: Buc-ee’s would be entering a short interstate corridor where motorists already have an unusually dense set of opportunities to purchase fuel, food, convenience items, diesel, and travel services.

Within roughly five miles of the Monument area are fuel or convenience operations including Phillips 66/Rocket on Highway 105, Sinclair in Woodmoor, Maverik, Murphy USA, Circle K, 7-Eleven, and the Baptist Road cluster that includes the established Valero travel center plus newer large-format QuikTrip and Pilot travel operations.[8] QuikTrip, Pilot, and Valero are not Buc-ee’s equivalents; they are evidence that the corridor is already heavily supplied with highway-oriented fuel and travel services.

That matters because a Buc-ee’s here would need to create incremental demand, capture share from existing operators, or rely heavily on destination traffic. The independent traffic review already found that Buc-ee’s should be expected to draw a greater share of destination and diverted trips than a typical gasoline station with a convenience store.[9] A market where basic travel needs are already well served is financially different from an underserved interstate junction where Buc-ee’s can become the dominant travel stop from day one.

The physical constraints remain regardless of the approval path

The Monument Hill proposal also carries site-specific constraints that remain regardless of the approval path Buc-ee’s ultimately pursues. The independent traffic review identified the I-25/County Line Road interchange as the primary point of impact and specifically called for additional analysis of ramp queues, possible spillback toward the interstate mainline, sight distance, ramp spacing, crash history, and freeway merge conditions.[9]

Those are not political objections. They are characteristics of the road network. The same is true of the project’s water demand, extensive paved and fueling area, 24-hour operation, lighting, noise, and utility requirements. Buc-ee’s can change an application, but it cannot rezone the interstate geometry, lower Monument Hill, or remove the underlying water and infrastructure demands created by a travel center of this scale.

This is an unusually sensitive place for an unusually intensive development

The environmental context compounds the site-selection risk. A 2025 environmental assessment of the proposed property identified two principal concerns: aquatic resources and big-game populations. The assessment places Colorado Parks and Wildlife-designated aquatic High Priority Habitat approximately 0.25 miles downslope and identifies potential risks from stormwater runoff and fuel-related pollutants associated with the proposed development.[10]

The same assessment places the property within elk and mule-deer habitat and less than a mile from two significant I-25 wildlife underpasses. It also identifies the nearby Greenland Wildlife Overpass and concludes that the proposed project’s traffic, lighting, noise, human activity, and visibility could affect wildlife movement and use of the surrounding corridor.[10] These are not abstract concerns in a generic commercial district. They arise from the specific location Buc-ee’s selected. For Buc-ee’s leadership, these conditions represent more than environmental concerns; they represent additional permitting, mitigation, reputational, and schedule risks attached specifically to this site.

Water is similarly location-specific. State permits issued for the property authorize Denver and Arapahoe aquifer wells with combined permitted annual volumes of approximately 10.6 million gallons. Earlier project analysis estimated average-day demand of approximately 37,300 gallons and maximum-day demand of approximately 113,600 gallons.[2] Whatever final engineering solution is proposed, the scale of the demand illustrates another persistent characteristic of the project that must be weighed against alternative sites with municipal infrastructure designed for intensive commercial development.

There are markets where the same investment may work harder

Buc-ee’s has the advantage of being a sought-after brand with numerous opportunities for continued expansion. Monument Hill therefore should not be evaluated simply on whether the project can ultimately be built there, but against the other places where the same capital could potentially produce a stronger return with less development friction.

Several markets illustrate that opportunity particularly well.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Buc-ee’s is already in preliminary discussions regarding the Oklahoma City market, and Kenton Tsoodle, president and CEO of the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, has publicly expressed hope that Buc-ee’s will choose the area. With no formal site yet announced, Buc-ee’s retains the opportunity to select the right location rather than adapt its business model to the limitations of a particular parcel. The metropolitan area offers access to both I-40 and I-35, a substantially larger customer base, abundant developable land, lower construction-cost and labor benchmarks than Colorado Springs, and dramatically less snowfall exposure. It also closely reflects the business environment Mr. Aplin has recently described as desirable for Buc-ee’s expansion.[11]

Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Sioux Falls represents another type of opportunity: a market Buc-ee’s does not currently serve but whose underlying characteristics appear well suited to the company’s model. The intersection of I-29 and I-90 creates a natural regional travel hub, while comparatively affordable development land and lower construction-cost benchmarks could allow Buc-ee’s to deploy its capital more efficiently. Sioux Falls certainly experiences winter weather, so climate is not its comparative advantage. Its advantages are interstate geometry, available land, development economics, regional reach, and the opportunity to introduce the Buc-ee’s brand into a new market.

Des Moines / Urbandale, Iowa. Buc-ee’s is already pursuing approximately 20 acres near I-35/80 and 100th Street for its first Iowa location. Urbandale’s Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the comprehensive-plan amendment needed for the project to advance. Public reporting describes an investment exceeding $60 million and more than 200 jobs, without the kind of organized opposition currently surrounding Monument Hill. The location offers the convergence of two major interstate corridors, lower construction-cost benchmarks than Colorado Springs, and access to a broad regional travel market.[12] It provides a useful real-world contrast between investing significant capital in a community where the approval process is moving forward and continuing to commit capital to a location where fundamental questions about compatibility remain unresolved.

Gretna, Nebraska provides an instructive example of what community alignment can look like. Buc-ee’s is already advancing a Nebraska location there, so Gretna is not being suggested as an alternative to Monument Hill. Rather, it demonstrates the potential value of locating where Buc-ee’s investment is actively embraced. Gretna’s mayor has characterized the project as an important economic-development milestone, the City Council has approved zoning and permits, and the community has considered substantial Good Life District incentives associated with the development.[13] That kind of alignment can reduce uncertainty, accelerate the path from investment to revenue, and allow Buc-ee’s leadership to focus resources on building and operating the business rather than overcoming sustained resistance to the location itself.

These examples highlight the opportunity cost of continuing to pursue Monument Hill. Buc-ee’s is not choosing between Monument Hill and no growth. It is choosing among competing opportunities for its capital, management attention, and development resources. Some markets offer stronger interstate geometry. Some offer lower construction and labor costs. Some provide access to new customers with less existing travel-service saturation. And some are already demonstrating that they actively welcome the investment Buc-ee’s brings.

For a company with as many expansion opportunities as Buc-ee’s, those differences deserve to be weighed against the additional capital, time, uncertainty, and operating constraints associated with making Monument Hill work.

A better outcome does not require anyone to lose

Buc-ee’s can continue expanding. A community that actively wants the investment can receive the jobs, tax revenue, tourism, and economic activity associated with a new store. Buc-ee’s can put its capital into a market with a more favorable combination of land, construction costs, infrastructure, traffic reliability, competitive whitespace, and local support. And Monument Hill can avoid forcing an unusually intensive regional travel center into a location with persistent traffic, groundwater, wildlife, weather, and environmental constraints.

The existing $10 million land investment should not become the reason to commit the much larger investment that follows. The appropriate question for Buc-ee’s leadership is not “How do we make Monument Hill work?” It is “Of all the opportunities available to us, is Monument Hill still the best risk-adjusted use of our next dollar?”

We believe the answer is no.

There are communities that want Buc-ee’s. There are interstate markets with more favorable construction economics. There are locations with less severe weather exposure and fewer site-specific infrastructure and natural-resource conflicts. And there are places where Buc-ee’s could create more incremental economic value because the travel-services market is not already as densely supplied.

Build the next Buc-ee’s where the fit is right. Monument Hill is not that place.

---

Selected sources and supporting record

[1] Arch Aplin III expansion remarks: Buc-ee’s CEO says chain prefers states with ‘conservative, business-friendly’ leadership

[2] Monument Hill acquisition, water rights and project background: Our Community News – El Paso County / Buc-ee’s coverage

[3] 2026 comparative construction-cost and labor benchmarks: Construction Costs by City 2026 | HammerIO

[4] Colorado construction-cost escalation reference: Construction Cost Index by Year – Colorado Department of Transportation

[5] Monument snowfall benchmark: Climate Monument – Colorado and Weather averages Monument

[6a] Palmer Divide winter-travel risk: Blizzard conditions expected tonight through Tuesday on the Eastern Plains and Palmer Divide

[6b] 2026 Palmer Divide winter-travel risk: CDOT urges travelers to dust off winter driving skills as substantial snow is expected to hit Colorado

[7a] Oklahoma City snowfall comparison: NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory – Climatology for Oklahoma City, OK

[7b] Des Moines snowfall comparison: Des Moines Climate Data – National Weather Service

[8] Monument-area fuel/travel-service locations: QuikTrip – Monument, Colorado location

[9] Independent traffic engineering review: Galloway – Buc-ee’s Traffic Impact Study Review (included in APP261 public record)

[10] Environmental assessment: HWA Wildlife Consulting – Buc-ee’s Palmer Lake Site Environmental Assessment (included in APP261 public record)

[11] Oklahoma City receptiveness and active discussions: Is Buc-ee’s still coming to Oklahoma City? Latest updates

[12] Urbandale approval and proposed Iowa investment: Buc-ee’s clears early hurdle for first proposed Iowa travel center

[13] Gretna community and government support: Texas-based Buc-ee’s likely headed to Gretna

[14] Official APP261 status and scope: El Paso County – Buc-ee’s Update