Longmont council moves to limit number of registered *** offenders in residences; public raises transparency concerns about nearby facility

The Longmont City Council on April 22 directed staff to include a limit of three registered *** offenders per residence in proposed ordinance language that also addresses distance restrictions from certain uses. The direction passed unanimously among members present; Mayor Peck and Council member McCoy were absent.

Mayor Pro Tem Susie Hidalgo Faring introduced the matter on behalf of the mayor, asking council to add a numeric cap to the distance requirements then being drafted. “In addition to that with following the same criteria that we're following for distance requirements also limit the number of people to 3,” she said during the meeting. Council members debated whether legal counsel should first review the concept in executive session because of potential legal ramifications relating to housing and civil rights; City Attorney Eugene May advised the council that “there are certainly legal issues with any over this topic,” and staff offered confidential email guidance as an interim step.

The council also agreed to schedule a confidential legal briefing and requested additional documentation and open-records responses from an outside operator identified in multiple public comments. Residents used the meeting’s public-comment portion to press the council for action related to a private operator at a single-family house on Winding Drive that residents said was housing multiple registered *** offenders in a primarily residential zone. Speakers said the house had grown to eight residents and complained about lack of timely certification information from the contractor noted as CAR in the discussion. Several residents asserted that they had not been notified of an open house and described safety concerns because the property sits less than 300 feet from a playground and an elementary-school walking route.

City staff said they are pursuing records and that council would receive a detailed Council Communication with operational and legal background before the next ordinance hearing. Staff also said building, fire-code and state preemption questions complicate the city’s options. City Manager Harold (surname not specified in the record) told council staff had filed open-records requests and would seek any redactions necessary but would press for responsive documents.

Outcome and next steps: Council directed staff to include a three-person limit in the ordinance drafting and to provide legal guidance; council members agreed to a May 6 schedule for a possible executive session and to additional briefings. The council did not adopt the ordinance at the April 22 meeting; the direction was to bring the proposed language for first reading at an upcoming meeting after the legal review and additional staff work.

Public concerns raised at the meeting were concentrated on transparency and whether the operator had CAR certification; staff said CAR had not responded to open-records inquiries, and the city had asked for additional documentation.

Votes at a glance: Motion to include a cap limiting the number of registered *** offenders to three per residence (to accompany distance requirements) — moved on behalf of the mayor by Mayor Pro Tem Susie Hidalgo Faring; seconded by Council member Yarbrough; outcome: approved unanimously among members present (Mayor Peck and Council member McCoy absent).