Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alamosa council waives $34,501 in development fees, advances land‑use and board changes in unanimous votes
Summary
At its April meeting the Alamosa City Council unanimously approved a fee waiver for a new childcare center, advanced two land‑use ordinances on first reading, adopted a resolution adding youth representatives to advisory boards, and approved a firearms‑qualification change for security guards.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Alamosa City Council voted unanimously at its April meeting to waive $34,501.25 in development fees for a new Little Learners Early Childhood Center and moved several land‑use and governance items forward, including ordinances to introduce form‑based review standards and to allow security exceptions to razor‑wire fencing. Council also adopted a resolution adding youth representatives to most city advisory boards and approved alternative firearms qualification documentation for private security personnel.
The most immediate action was a motion to waive $34,501.25 in building, plan‑review and public‑works fees for the Little Learners center, a project tied to the Boys & Girls Club. A city staff member described the center as “one of the highest economic development priorities for the city” and asked the council to waive fees that include tap and plan‑investment charges; the council approved the waiver unanimously.
In land‑use business, council approved on first reading Ordinance 6‑2025, which adds form‑based review standards as an additional compliance pathway for certain multifamily developments. Development staff emphasized that “all of the other existing methods of compliance are still there” and described the change as a tool that can be applied where appropriate; the ordinance was set for second reading and public hearing on April 16. The council also advanced Ordinance 5‑2025 on first reading to create a process for security exceptions to the city’s prohibition on razor‑wire fencing; staff said the change is intended to accommodate federally or state‑required security at critical infrastructure sites.
Separately, council held a public hearing and approved second reading of an amendment to municipal code section 10‑197 allowing security guard applicants to submit alternative evidence of firearms training and background checks in lieu of obtaining a county concealed‑carry permit. The measure passed unanimously.
On governance, the council adopted Resolution 6‑2025 to add a youth representative (ages 14–21) to most city advisory boards and committees; the change adds a voting seat on several boards created by resolution and nonvoting youth positions on charter boards, where a voter change would require a ballot measure. The council also set Ordinance 9‑2025 for first reading to add a youth voting representative to the Historical Preservation Advisory Committee.
Votes at a glance
- Little Learners fee waiver — Motion to waive $34,501.25 in fees for the Little Learners Early Childhood Center (Boys & Girls Club project). Outcome: approved unanimously. - Ordinance 6‑2025 (form‑based review standards) — Approved on first reading; second reading and public hearing set for 04/16/2025 at 7 p.m. - Ordinance 5‑2025 (security exceptions for razor/razor‑wire fencing) — Approved on first reading; set for public hearing. - Ordinance 4‑2025 (security guard firearms qualifications) — Public hearing and second reading approved unanimously. - Resolution 6‑2025 (youth representatives on advisory boards) — Adopted unanimously; defines youth reps as ages 14–21 and clarifies voting status depending on board type. - Ordinance 9‑2025 (HPAC youth voting rep) — Approved on first reading; public hearing set for 04/16/2025.
Councilors and staff framed the actions as pragmatic adjustments to support development, safety and civic engagement while preserving existing review options for projects. Several items had been discussed previously in work sessions or in planning commission hearings, and staff frequently described the measures as tools to be used on a case‑by‑case basis, not broad policy shifts.
Council votes were recorded in roll calls at the meeting and described in the public record; the meeting transcript records votes as carried unanimously for the items above.

