Longmont council approves first reading of ordinance limiting where some registered sex offenders may live

Longmont — The Longmont City Council on May 6 approved on first reading an amendment to Title 10 of the Longmont Municipal Code that would limit where certain registered sex offenders may live and cap the number of unrelated registrants who may reside together.

The ordinance, as amended by the council, sets a 500-foot setback from schools, day-care centers and private or public parks and would bar people meeting specified registry criteria from establishing residence inside those areas. The draft also would prohibit more than three unrelated registered sex offenders from living at the same address. The ordinance passed its first reading by a 6-1 vote; Councilor Rodriguez cast the lone vote against final passage.

Council members and city staff said the measure is intended to address residents' safety concerns while preserving legal limits on local regulation of registrants. "There are four affected categories of registered sex offenders," Jeremy Turrell, assistant city attorney, told the council, outlining the draft: "sexually violent predators, offenders with multiple victims, offenders with multiple offenses, and offenders with felonies involving minors." He described the ordinance as forward-looking and said people already living inside a setback would be permitted to remain until they move.

Why it matters: supporters of the change said the restrictions respond to neighborhood anxiety after a sober-living residence for people on the sex-offender registry opened at 2200 Winding Drive. Opponents and some experts warned that broad residency limits can reduce housing stability and hamper re-entry programs that reduce recidivism.

How it would work: under the current draft, Longmont Police Department staff would check a registrant's address against a planning department map when the person registers with the police. Violations would be enforced in Longmont Municipal Court; the ordinance authorizes penalties of up to a $500 fine, up to 90 days in jail, or both. Turrell said foster placements and people who are no longer required to register are exempt, and the city cannot enforce the rule against individuals who have successfully petitioned to terminate a registration requirement.

Council debate focused on the scope of setback distances and the numerical limit for shared residences. Councilor Matthew Popkin proposed reducing the proposed 1,000-foot school/day-care setback to 500 feet, arguing the research he reviewed did not demonstrate a clear safety benefit from larger buffer zones and that wider buffers could have unintended consequences for housing availability. Popkin read aloud an excerpt from peer-reviewed literature that, in his words, found "the timing of the residence restriction policy was not associated with meaningful change in sex-crime arrests or sex-offender recidivism after the policy implementation date." The motion to change the setbacks to 500 feet passed 4-3.

A separate motion by Councilor Rodriguez to remove the ordinance's shared-residency limit failed 6-1. Rodriguez had argued the cap could have the practical effect of concentrating registrants in particular neighborhoods and disproportionately affect older, non-HOA areas; other council members cited examples from nearby municipalities that limit congregate residency and said a numerical limit preserved a balance between community safety and housing stability.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Dozens of residents urged quick, strict limits because of concern for children near neighborhood parks and schools; Joe Snyder, a nearby resident, told the council, "Please do something about 2200 Winding Drive." Speakers who live or work with registrants said structured, supervised congregate housing supports recovery and prevents homelessness, which they argued improves public safety. Ruhollah Mobares, founder and operator of Mobares Solutions — the operator of the house at 2200 Winding Drive — said his program offers "structure, support, and accountability," and told councilors, "Our home is a certified and federally protected program under the Americans with Disabilities Act." Several treatment providers, probation staff and nonprofit reentry providers told councilors that stable housing and supervision help reduce recidivism.

Staff and next steps: city staff said the ordinance is the policy decision before council and that operational questions — including information the city has requested from state agencies and certification status for the program at 2200 Winding Drive — remain under review. The city manager reported the Colorado Department of Human Services and related certification records had been the subject of public-records requests; staff said some documents were provided with redactions and that CAR (the state housing/certification entity referenced in staff reports) had indicated a certification process was pending in March. Turrell confirmed the council must hold a second reading and public hearing; staff set the second reading/public hearing for May 20.

Councilors emphasized the ordinance is forward-looking: residents who currently live inside a protected setback or in a residence with more than three registrants would be "grandfathered" and could remain, but new registrants or returning registrants who move would have to comply. Councilors also discussed the risk of legal challenges; staff and the city attorney said they had no immediate legal barrier to the ordinance language as amended but acknowledged continued litigation risk.

The ordinance will return to council for a second reading and public hearing on May 20. If approved at second reading, the ordinance would create enforceable setbacks and a three-person limit for newly establishing residences of the categories of registered sex offenders identified in the draft.