Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Recovery Residences topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longmont residents urge city action after multiple registered offenders move into single home recovery facility
Summary
Three residents from Winding Drive told council they found multiple registered offenders living together in what they say is a commercial recovery residence; speakers asked the city to consider an ordinance limiting how many registered offenders may live in a single-family home and requested clearer communication from regulators and staff.
Several Longmont residents used the study-session public-comment period to urge council to act after a house on Winding Drive began operating, they say, as a recovery residence that houses multiple registered offenders.
Connie Hamming, a Winding Drive resident, said she believes changes to state law that allowed more unrelated adults to live together created an unintended pathway for investors to convert single-family homes into “treatment type centers” that she called “mini hotels.” Hamming said, “Several surrounding cities have adopted restrictions to the number of registered *** offenders who can reside in 1 house. Such a restriction would end these types of businesses opening in our residential neighborhoods,” and she asked the city to move quickly to prevent similar operations.
Anna Graves, who identified herself as living at 2293 Winding Drive, described the proximity of the home to places children frequent and said the appearance of multiple registered offenders “overnight” without notice to neighbors or the HOA was unacceptable. Graves asked the council to “put an ordinance in place immediately that prohibits a home of 5 registered *** offenders to be living so close to areas frequented by hundreds, if not thousands of children.”
Nathan Drasher, also a Winding Drive resident, said he had attempted to contact the Colorado Agency for Recovery Residences (the state certifying agency) and the Behavioral Health authority managing the contract (BHA), but that he had not received responsive communications; he asked for city assistance coordinating with the state and for the council to place the item on a future agenda so the community can receive updates.
What the city said: Staff told residents the item would return to a regular meeting agenda (staff indicated it would likely appear at the first regular meeting after the study session) so council could consider additional information and next steps. No ordinance or regulatory change was proposed or adopted during the study session.
Next steps requested by speakers: residents asked for (a) immediate consideration of an ordinance limiting the number of registered offenders who may live in a single-family home used as a recovery residence, (b) removal or relocation of the current residents if allowable under state law and contracts, and (c) better communication from state regulators and the city about certification and siting of recovery residences.
