Longmont council asks staff for options on residency-distance rules for registered sex offenders

Longmont City Council on March 4 directed staff to draft and map options for a local ordinance that would restrict where registered sex offenders may establish residences in the city.

The discussion followed public comments from neighborhood residents concerned about multiple registered offenders living at a single address near a school and park. City staff presented legal and operational constraints, crime-class definitions and local registry counts, and asked the council whether it wanted staff to develop specific distance-based proposals for further review.

Public safety chief Zach Artis and assistant city attorney Jeremy Terrell outlined the limits of local authority and what state law already requires. Artis told the council the city has 286 registered offenders in Longmont and that “181…have felony offenses and fixed residences,” with 18 identified as having multiple offenses. Terrell said Colorado has no statewide residency rule and that roughly 35 Colorado jurisdictions have adopted local restrictions of varying scope.

Council members debated the scope and targets for any ordinance — whether to apply only to felony convictions or to all registrants; whether to cover only crimes against minors; and which public sites should be protected. Several council members urged a narrow initial focus on locations associated with children, such as schools, day-care centers and playgrounds.

Council gave staff direction to prepare map overlays illustrating how different buffer distances would affect the city. Staff said they would produce alternatives showing 1,000-foot, 750-foot and 500-foot buffers and would provide versions that include and exclude parks and public trails so council can see likely “pocket” effects. Council also asked staff to include the city’s youth/family center and to gather further information on school-bus stops if feasible.

City staff said the operational code check on the house that prompted the discussion is proceeding: if a property requires different building- or fire-code treatment (for example, as a congregate living facility) the city will follow normal code enforcement and permit procedures. Council was repeatedly advised that any new local residency restriction would not retroactively displace residents who lawfully lived in a location before the ordinance took effect; staff said state and constitutional limits counsel against retroactive application.

Council did not vote on an ordinance at the March 4 meeting. Instead it asked staff to return with mapped options, legal analysis, definitions for which offenders would be covered, and a draft timeline for public review and a potential first reading.

The council’s request sets up a more detailed staff report and a future policy vote once elected officials can review buffer maps and legal constraints.