https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZ9RTxvh_c
Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – May 6, 2025
The Longmont City Council meeting on May 6, 2025, addressed several key issues. The council approved the April 22, 2025, meeting minutes and revised the agenda to remove a bill on residency restrictions. A motion to reduce setback distances for sex offenders from 1000 to 500 feet was proposed by Councilor Popkin, citing research suggesting 1000 feet may not significantly reduce recidivism. Councilor Rodriguez raised concerns about the impact on historical neighborhoods. The council also discussed the Longmont Fair Campaigns Act and home composting initiatives. Public comments highlighted concerns about sex offender housing and the need for balanced policies. The Longmont City Council discussed the ordinance amendment regarding sex offender housing. Speaker 21 emphasized the low recidivism rate among sex offenders in congregate living and the negative impact of homelessness on recidivism. Speaker 33 proposed a 500-foot setback for all sex offenders, noting the balance between public safety and housing stability. Speaker 35 highlighted recidivism data, with 30% of offenses occurring in shared residences. The motion to amend the ordinance to a 500-foot setback passed 6-1. The council also discussed the impact of the ordinance on current and future housing arrangements, emphasizing the need for evidence-based policies.
5:08
Thank you for your patience. We are just getting everyone seated school.
5:22
Of course. I know who was, oops. I
6:04
I would now like to call the City Council regular session may 6, 2025, to order, you can watch this streamlined on the Longmont public media.org, forward slash, watch channels, Comcast, eight and 880 or the city’s YouTube channel. Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo fairing is ill tonight and unable to attend in person, so I’m going to make a motion that we allow Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo faring to attend this council meeting virtually. It’s been moved by myself, seconded by councilor McCoy, all those in favor, say, aye, All those opposed, and that passes unanimously. Thank you. May we have a roll call please. Mayor Peck present,
7:00
Council Member Christ present council member Hidalgo fairing here, Council Member McCoy, Council Member Popkin, Council Member Rodriguez here, Council Member Yarbro, Mayor you have a quorum.
7:14
Thank you. Let’s stand for the pledge,
7:22
and I as a reminder to the public in accordance with the council’s rules of procedure, the rules for providing public comment are as follows, only Longmont residents and employees of the city of Longmont will be allowed to speak during first call public invited to be heard, and you need to sign the sheet outside with your name and address. You will be given three minutes to speak. Each speaker, anyone may speak on second reading or public hearing item, and you’re asked to add your name to the sheet outside to the speaker list for that specific item before the meeting, anyone may speak at final call in public, invited to be heard. Members of the audience shall refrain from disruptive, vulgar or abusive language, applause, heckling, or other actions that interfere with the orderly function of this council I may I have a motion to approve the April 22 2025 regular session meetings. April
8:34
22 2025
8:37
regular session Second. It’s been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by councilor Christ. Are there any comments or edits to that, to those minutes, seeing none. Let’s vote.
8:58
Are we okay with the coming up again? A verbal vote. All those in favor, say, aye, All those opposed. That passes unanimously. We have some agenda revisions tonight. Do we have any by the City Clerk’s office? No Mayor, thank you. I have a couple of revisions to our agenda, and I’ll make them make those revisions in a motion. First, I am, we’ve already done that. They put it on my agenda, and I was ready to allow Mayor Pro Tem to remote, virtually, but we’ve already done that. So the second one is I move to revise the agenda, to remove the general business item 2025, 33 which is a bill for an ordinance amending title 10 of the Longmont Municipal Code concerning residency restrictions to be discussed, to be discussed. I want to move it before the consent agenda and after P. ITB, H, second. So it’s been moved. You have,
10:07
you have the prerogative to amend. As mayor, I’m saying there’s no
10:13
second necessarily. I did talk to our council about this earlier today, and he did mention that we should probably have a motion for this. So that was seconded by councilor McCoy. And my reasoning is that councilor pumpkin has a hard stop at 11 o’clock tonight in order to make it to the airport for his flight. So I think that it would probably go after 11 if we kept it on general business,
10:46
okay, so now we’re moving on to the city manager’s report. Oh yes, see you missed me up there. Sorry. So voting on the motion to revise the agenda. Let’s vote all those in favor say aye.
11:18
No, I don’t have it. So all those in favor say, Aye, All those opposed, and that passes unanimously. We are now on to the city manager’s report.
11:29
No report, Mayor Council
11:34
Oh, I’m sorry. Councilor McCoy,
11:42
okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Peck, I’d like to have put on a future
11:50
I’m sorry. That is okay. Never mind. You’re correct. Sorry to interrupt you future
11:56
agenda discussion about the Longmont fare campaigns Act specifically around the issue of LLCs to have a discussion about That
12:20
councilor McCoy moved to have a discussion placed on a future agenda about the fair campaigns act, seconded by councilor Crist. Is there any discussion? Councilor Popkin,
12:34
Thank you, Mayor pack. Councilman McCoy, I have no inherent opposition, but I wonder if you could just elaborate a little bit more on what’s behind the motion. Thank you.
12:45
Yeah, well, in the previous election, we had a case where now we’ve dealt with the situation around PO boxes, and now we’re dealing I’d like to have a conversation around LLCs. I have no problem if someone says that they are, you know, John Smith, Mountain High, whatever, LLC, what I have problem with is that it’s a mountain high LLC, a mountain, high, L, C, B, and so and so forth, so forth. And it’s kind of getting that sort of that dark money that I don’t think is necessary in our politics at this local level, and I’d like to make sure that we address it before our next election.
13:39
Thank you, Council. Crist,
13:44
while I have seconded the motion, I actually have an agenda revision of my own. We
13:49
need to vote on this first please. Yes. Okay,
13:58
so there are no more there’s no more discussion on this motion. All those in favor say, Aye, All those opposed. So that passes five to one with Councilor. No, I’m sorry I didn’t see your vote, Mayor Pro Tem, okay,
14:22
yeah, I’m a Yay. Okay, I’m able to vote on here. Are you able to see it?
14:27
I can’t see anybody’s vote. It isn’t coming up at
14:30
all. Then I’ll give a verbal vote. Okay,
14:33
thank you. So That passes unanimously with, I’m sorry that passes six to one with Councilor Rodriguez opposing counselor Crist.
14:54
I’m sure we all have gotten the email from water wise regarding composting and how important it. Is to have healthy soil. And then I also saw the sustainability transfers in our consent agenda, and that just prompted me to ask if staff and maybe more specifically, the sustainability Advisory Board, could bring back some ideas to encourage home composting as a cost in environmental savings to the city until we’re able to compost locally, which and that’s available, which would might be a year or two before it’s available.
15:42
Do that’s me. Thank you, councilor. Chris, can you? Can you state that one more time succinctly, I’m
15:58
going to ask staff and perhaps the sustainability advisory board to bring back information on how we can do home compound, home composting in preparation for local city composting, I think that might yield savings for the city until it’s available locally.
16:28
Well, I mean, we have to ship it out.
16:29
Do I have a second? I know
16:38
councilor Popkin, yeah,
16:40
I’m not going to second it. Can I just make a quick clarification or point, maybe a point of information? No, it’s a point of clarification, actually, because I have the answer. So the city of Longmont does offer composting for residential and commercial purposes. It like you can compost and have it shipped out, or you can compost like I do and use it in your garden or use it for other local purposes. You can get your own composting bin and do that on your own. There also is a direct service you can subscribe through our just like your recycling and trash, that will pick up organic waste. It won’t pick up any like paper plates that are compostable, but it will pick up other materials there. So with that, I don’t think that this is necessary at this time, but I’d welcome insight from other council members. If you disagree.
17:26
Seeing no other comments,
17:29
we just have, I’ve gotten a few communications asking for that information. It’s good time to, you know, as we’re in spring, to start considering offer, you know, offering some education, I guess, for those who would like it.
17:44
So I don’t have a second, so the motion dies. For lack of a second, we are now going on to our special
17:53
mayor. Yeah, I have my hand up. Oh, I’m sorry, for a while, yeah, I wanted to, I was going to second it and but ask, but I recommend make a friendly amendment. Okay, go, because it does sound like we have systems in order. So I will second it, but it sounds like we have systems in order for people who are familiar with composting, but it would really be a presentation for the community who aren’t familiar with composting or have a desire to move forward in composting, and through the work that I’ve been doing with our cab the resource conservation Advisory Board, we have a lot of networks county wide that rather than laying it on our city staff or or sustainability Advisory Board, which is a voluntary group, to see if Boulder County would be willing to come out and do a presentation on home composting and out, you know, people wanted to do something that’s outside of the city, our our own compost composting facility. Will you accept
18:59
that friendly amendment to have Boulder County make the presentation?
19:05
Yes, and thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, that’s a good suggestion.
19:10
Okay, the motion then is to with an amendment is to have the county come to City Council at a future agenda and make a presentation, presentation about in house comments.
19:29
So let’s vote. I see no other questions.
19:39
Crystal, are you amending?
19:44
Yeah. Do you have your hand? Your Yes, yes, I say I’m a Yay. Okay, so I’m a Yay. All those in favor say aye, aye. That passes. Did I hear it? Nay, that passes you now? Miss Lee. Oh, that passes six to one with counselor Popkin in opposition. Can you do you know why this is not showing up on my computer? It’s very frustrating. I
20:28
mayor, have I signed in there from when I did the meeting last
20:36
No, you’re not okay. It doesn’t pop up on my screen at all, so that’s frustrating. Okay. Thank you very much. We’re going to move on now to special reports and presentations, and I would like to welcome publicly the our Japanese delegation and read a proclamation for Sister Cities. This is a proclamation designating may 6, 2025 as Longmont Sister Cities Appreciation Day in Longmont, Colorado, whereas the residents of Longmont honor our relationship with our sister cities and continue our commitment to cultural exchange and whereas Longmont has three sister cities, Chino, Japan, ciudad Guzman, Mexico and the Northern Arapaho, Wind River Reservation. And whereas born of a shared vision of cultural understanding, appreciation and celebration, the Longmont Sister Cities Association has organized student exchanges for nearly 30 years. And whereas we thank Mayor EMI and Japanese and the Japanese delegation for hosting us in March and visiting us here today. Thank you to the ambassadors and chaperones who represent Longmont abroad, and whereas we hope the sisterhood between our cities will only strengthen in the years to come. Now, therefore I Joan Peck mayor, by virtue of the authority vested in me and the City Council of the City of Longmont, do hereby proclaim May 6 2025 as Longmont Sister Cities Appreciation Day in Longmont, Colorado. And is there anybody? Courtney Michelle, the president of the sister cities organization in Longmont.
22:21
Hello, Mayor Peck and council members. Thank you very much. And yes, I’m here to accept that proclamation and introduce Mary mai from our sister city in Chino, Japan,
22:41
Courtney. Do you want to pull down that microphone? Thank you, Mayor. EMI,
22:50
your Jessica, it was actually show no in My attitude, Thomas, you must be No. Moon. Call
23:14
can
23:27
Bucha,
23:44
Linda,
24:22
cannot say this. Olimas, it’s not long want to snow user, moment only she’s gonna do Sure COVID.
25:00
To the category, almost economic COVID. Criticized when you can, I told him us, and he had to, was I missed that. Thank you very much. Yes. Yes.
25:27
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is atsui ibai, Mayor of city of Chino Nagano Prefecture. It is a great honor for me to give a speech at the Longmont City Council. The cities of Chino and Longmont became sister cities in 1990 and have built a friendly relationship for over 30 years. In particular, the homestay exchange for junior and senior high school students that began in 1991 has become a valuable experience for the younger generations of both cities and an important opportunity to learn about each other’s cultures and values. City of Chino is a region rich in nature that spreads out at the foot of the yatsu gata yatsugatake Mountain and is attractive for its beautiful scenery in all four seasons. The symbol of the city is the genshin flower. It blooms beautiful, pale purple flowers at the end of the autumn and blooms quietly in nature, the flower language of this gentian is sincerity and unchanging love, and along with its quiet beauty, it symbolizes our sincere feelings. Just like the gentian plant, the friendship between the city of Chino and the city of Longmont has quietly but steadily taken root and has deepened over the past 30 years, the two cities treasure their past exchanges while cultivating new ties for the future. I believe that being sincere with each other and supporting each other with unchanging feelings in this way is what keeps the sister city relationship strong and long lasting. I hope to continue to further deepen the ties between our two cities and create new opportunities for exchange for future generations. Thank you very much. Thank
27:08
you. Do you want a picture? Courtney, Okay, let’s all come Up to applause.
28:02
K, e, each Knee, so, each knee, son.
28:20
Good. Documentary.
28:36
Mayor pack in council when we were in Chino, Japan, earlier this March, the city of Chino gave a beautiful gift to the city of Longmont that we will show to the public right now. It is some beautiful statues that can join our wonderful collection out in the lobby. So we would like to present those again to the public, and then we Have a little something for Our guests from chino. I
29:56
although it’s wrapped, we have an artisan. Bowl made by a long monster, Dean diamond right here in Longmont, made from some beautiful wood, sepale wood, so we have some hand crafts. Thank you very
30:22
much. You much.
30:32
And in true Japanese fashion, you can’t show up without a gift. So he has yet another gift for our city, if you would accept that, Mayor Peck you. This is the Jomon Venus. This was found 5000 years ago in the city of Chino itself, which is a significant historical find for Japan, and it’s considered a national treasure, and it is really quite something when you see it in the museum.
31:02
I want
31:13
to say that this is from the people who settled, you know, 5000 years ago, they were called the jam on people. And this was, as you can see, that it was made out of clay from the area that they inhabited. So it’s very special to Chino, Japan. You
31:40
I’m so sorry. I
32:04
you. Thank you. We have another proclamation tonight, and it’s a proclamation designating the week of May 11 through the 17th, 2025 as National Police Week, and further designating May 15, 2025 as Peace Officers Memorial Day in Longmont Colorado. Whereas the Congress and President of the United States have designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which it falls is National Police Week. And whereas the members of the Longmont Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the residents of Longmont Colorado, and whereas it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties, responsibilities, hazards and sacrifices of their law enforcement agency, and that members of our law enforcement agency recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding the life and property, by protecting them against violence and disorder, And by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression. And whereas the northern Colorado regional peace officer memorial service will be held at 40 4:30pm, on May 15, 2025, at the Longmont Civic Center Mall. Now therefore, I Joan Peck, Mayor and the City Council of the City of Longmont call upon all citizens of Longmont and upon all patriotic civic and educational organizations to observe the week of May 11 through the 17th, 2025 as Police Week, with appropriate ceremonies and observances in which All of our people may join in commemorating law enforcement officers past and present, who, by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities, have rendered a dedicated service to their communities, and in so doing, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. I further call upon all citizens of Longmont to observe Thursday May 15, 2025 as Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of those law enforcement officers who, through their courageous deeds, have made the ultimate sacrifice and service for their community, or have become disabled in the performance of duty, and let us recognize and pay respect to the survivors of our fallen heroes. I want to say, if you have not come to that memorial service on May 15 in previous years, you should come and see it. It is quite it’s quite an emotional ceremony, but it does allow us to remember and to honor our police officers. So in who is going to accept this? I think it is going to be master police officer. Sir, Ryan, Douglas, James, Taylor, Rick, Evers or Evers. I don’t know how many of you are here, just two of you. Okay, would you like a picture with us? Yes, no, okay. Oh, I’m
35:32
going to refresh your screen. Thank
35:41
you. Oops, All Thank you
36:07
very much.
36:22
Applause.
36:32
Do we have the public environment be reduced? I other
36:51
question. Oh, thank you.
36:53
Okay. Anyways, I’m not good at
37:02
that. At that.
37:06
We are now at first call public invited to be heard. You have three minutes, and we would like you to present your name and address, and the first person on the list is Melissa Irwin. I
37:35
Thank you,
37:37
Mayor and members of council, thank you for your time. And first, I’d like to thank you all for your work in drafting this ordinance. Tonight, I am pivoting a bit with my remarks. I’d like to briefly share some key findings regarding halfway houses in Colorado based on recent investigative reports and legislation following a 2023 pro publica investigation, Colorado lawmakers passed a law requiring independent financial audits of halfway houses, something that hasn’t happened in over 20 years. The first audits are due in july 2025 the investigation uncovered widespread issues, lack of transparency, poor addiction treatment, inadequate job training, and financial burdens that often leave residents in debt or worse, reincarcerated. Shockingly, only 35% of participants successfully complete these programs. Most halfway houses are privately run with minimal oversight. Some facilities have experienced repeated drug related deaths and consistent violations of safety standards. One example is the tragic case of Robert Roman Prieto, who died of a fentanyl overdose on Christmas Eve of 2021 at a facility in Colorado Springs. He was one of three to die there from drug overdoses in just eight months, despite multiple violations the operator, com, core, Inc, face little accountability. Another major concern is the fear of retaliation. Residents technically have the right to file grievance grievance heads, but many stay silent. Take Shannon Lucas sent to a halfway house for a non violent crime. Her anxiety medication was stolen, and rather than receiving public support, she was punished, exposing a deeply flawed and punitive culture Colorado’s overall recidivism rate returning to prison within three years stands at 50% one of the worst in the country. From 2019 to 2021, over 2000 halfway house residents were reincarcerated, effectively doubling taxpayer costs. These facilities are, in many ways, just another place to warehouse people. According to the Longmont leader article released yesterday, mobaras himself stated none of the residents of mobara solutions housing were mandate, court mandated to live in sober living facilities. Additionally, I’ve yet to hear of any behavioral health professionals working with them or supporting their model. This raises important. Questions about what support, if any, is actually being provided. As we continue to assess how we support individuals transitioning out of the justice system, we must ensure that accountability, transparency and real rehabilitation, not just cost shifting and punishment, are at the core of these programs. Thank you.
40:16
Thank you. Melissa, Chelsea, jewelry,
40:27
you, Mayor and members of council. My name is Chelsea Jewell. I live at the corner of 21st and sunlight in Ward one. First of all, I want to say thank you, and thank you to city staff for being deliberate in your development of the ordinance establishing setbacks for sex offenders. I hope you are proud of the amount of consideration that has gone into it and comfortable enough to vote yes. I’d like to speak specifically about the house at 2200 winding drive. The concept of a sex offender re entry house has merit, and I sincerely hope it is pursued responsibly in the future. However, what mobara Solutions has established is not a genuine re entry house. According to Colorado Code Title 25 sober living facility is defined as a premise place facility, or building that provides housing accommodations for individuals with a primary diagnosis of a substance use disorder. The EPA says a facility in the commercial institutional sector. Sector includes a variety of facility types, such as hotels, restaurants, office buildings, schools, hospitals, laboratories and government and military institutions. Nowhere does it list single family homes. I would really like us to stop calling this a facility. It is not a facility. It is a residential home in a neighborhood full of young families. The fundamental purpose of sober living facilities nationwide is to prevent incarcerating individuals for the victimless crime of substance possession, while providing a like minded community and professional support, it is deeply troubling to have to remind this council that human beings are not substances. Whether substance abuse was involved in any or all of the crimes committed by residents of 2200 winding drive, the sexual abuse of anyone, not just children, is never victimless by applying for protections reserved for legitimate sober living facilities, mobaras has displayed a disturbing disregard for the seriousness of sex offenses. Tonight’s council meeting agenda focuses primarily on the proposed ordinance, and again, I thank you for your eye on the future of Longmont. However, the ordinance itself is only tangential to the urgent issue already at hand. The immediate priority must be addressing my bar solutions presence at 2200 winding drive. If car will not provide information to any of the parents of Longmont so diligently seeking it, nor to city staff, then On what basis is mobile solutions being allowed to operate this facility and home is the car website, our source, the housing solutions page of my bars website doesn’t list the word sex a single time yet, 868, registered sex offenders are living there. Our children are not addictions to overcome. They are our most precious responsibility, the heartbeat of our families and the foundation upon which our community is built. We are asking you, our elected officials, to protect them now. Thank you. Thank
42:58
you. Chelsea, Joe, Snyder,
43:11
hi, Mayor, is that good? You don’t know
43:16
we’re working. There you go. Okay,
43:17
hi mayor and council. I’m here to speak about the increasing number of sex jokes. Would you mind giving your name and address? Oh yeah, I’m Joe Snyder. I live on the corner of Dexter drive and Collier and ward three, and I’m here to speak about the increasing number of sex offenders living at 22 winding drive. Last time I was here at a council meeting, there were six offenders living there. Now there are eight all living 300 feet from our neighborhood playground, and in a neighborhood full of children, is also very close to school that our children attend. It feels to our community like the council’s lack of urgent action is aiding in this situation. How many offenders will the city allow to live there? What is your limit? The City allows up to five unrelated people to live in a single residence. And not only are there eight people in this home, this home is operating as a facility and a business in a single family residential zone. Will you address this issue now that there are eight sex offenders living at this residential home, or do you plan to allow more to move in? I know you’re listening to our concerns and having things done behind the scenes, and that the process takes time, but this feels like an emergency situation that has been growing worse. We expect you to act with more urgency and concern for our children in our community, and regarding 22 winding drive I know you’re going to pass an ordinance or vote on ordinance and the distance for the distances of offenders to playgrounds and school. I also know that you say this won’t apply to the current residents. Please do something about the current residents. To do something about 22 winding drive please. We have been begging you to take this more seriously and act swifter than you have. This is our neighborhood. By our children, and we are beginning to feel helpless as you take time and more offenders fill the home. Thank you. Thank
45:07
you. Joe. Bob at Bob burger.
45:17
Hello, I’m Bob at Burger. 2196 winding drive, and I’ve spoken to many of you, personally. I’ve emailed many of you, some of you I couldn’t get a hold of, but I’ve been here a lot. I feel like the crazy name Bober is known by all of you now. It’s a weird name. What more can I say? You know how I feel? I’m not going to repeat it. I’ve been speaking often, and you know how the citizens of Longmont feel? It is not just one neighborhood involved here. Please, please be strong in setting these ordinances in place. Please make sure the laws that are in place are being followed, as that hasn’t been what we’ve been seeing. Please keep long lot safer, I beg you. Thank you. Thank you.
46:17
Bob at Anne Marie Morris, applause.
46:31
Good evening. My name is Anne Marie Morris. I’m a resident of Longmont. I live at 2407 Whistler drive. I’m here tonight because I have I’m a psychiatrist specialist, and I have corresponded with three physicians who have done a lot of research on child molestation, as well as reintegrate into reintegration into society. There are a few points that they made to me today that they thought were important to bring to the meeting tonight. The first one is that Megan’s Law is here because there were three ex child molesters living across the street from her, and she was sexually molested and murdered by them. So just so that the community understands that this is not a first. They also suggested that there should be a lot of supervision if there are eight sex offenders in one home, that we should as a community, make sure that eyes are on them and that we have definitely have a third party supervision structure for them. It’s all about safety, oversight and transparency. They all suggest that we demand transparency and third party supervision. For instance, that bi monthly psych evaluations of all the residents should come to the council once a month. That’s it. Thank you. Thank
48:35
you. Anne Marie, Steven Fauci, Steve,
48:48
good evening. I’m Steve Fauci. I live at 2900 cormorant place.
48:53
First off, I want to express my appreciation for this forum and the opportunity to speak. I want to talk about the sex offender housing issue in support of the proposed ordinance, I’m a homeowner, a father of children who live in the city, and grandfather of grandchildren that also live in the city. I take my responsibility for the care of our city and my children and my grandchildren very seriously, and I recognize that you take responsibility for our city and its citizens very seriously as well, or you wouldn’t be on the city council if you weren’t often staying till midnight. I hear from readings, but let me say at the onset, I do believe that ensuring the safety and security of the residents and citizens of the city is maybe one of the most critical jobs you have. I also recognize and appreciate the efforts of sincere individuals and orgs that have want to help reduce the likelihood of individuals recommitting a sex offense, individuals though that have violated the trust safety and innocence of another person. And in particular, a child. So it’s good to provide help, but the way that we are doing it needs to recognize that our community needs to balance this with safety and the needs of other residents. We need to protect the vulnerable. To do that, we need some boundaries. We need as best we can to mitigate opportunities for committing a sex offense, and that includes opportunities for grooming and manipulation that often leads to a sex offense. In short, we need to provide some protection and balance. We do this all the time in other areas. I mean, I was reading through title 10, where this proposed ordinance would be housed. You can enjoy a gathering at your home, but there are maximum nighttime sound levels that go with that. You can ride a bike or an E bike on sidewalks, but on Main Street, between third and Longs Peak street, you cannot why, because of the safety and needs of other residents and citizens that are going up and down a very busy area of our city. So there’s always a balance that’s needed, and we need that here again, I’m glad you’re addressing this for our city. The risk is just too high for you not to the trauma inflicted on victims is severe and long lasting. It affects the emotional, psychological and physical well being. We can’t afford to not protect the most vulnerable in our community the best that we are able. Thank you.
51:32
Thank you. Steven. Michael Pompa I
51:45
system. Good evening. My name is Michael Pompa. I reside at 2200 winding drive, Mayor, Council Member and residents along one I stand before you tonight, not only as a director of operations from albaross solutions, but also as a parent. I, like any parent, want my children to be safe. I understand the fear and the apprehension that discussions like this can bring the emotions that have come up the safety of our children, the well being of our families and the security of our homes. These are fundamental concerns that unite every member of this community. I recognize that before my involvement with COVID solutions, I may have felt the same way many of you in this room feel driven by those so those same protective instincts to give you a better sense of who I am, beyond my role, my past, my offense, I’d like to share a few things about myself. I enjoy the outdoors. I enjoy being connected with friends and family. I’m originally from California. Putting my feet into the ocean at any time is the most enjoyable thing. I also want to speak to the directly to the issue of trust. I understand that the offense is committed by our clients and by myself represent a breach of trust to the community. That is not something that I take lightly, or we take lightly. I assure you that every individual in our program is committed to changing the patterns and cycles that led to these past actions in our homes, clients are confronting not only behaviors that led to their offenses, but also deeply rooted substance addictions and past traumas, and they are working hard to maintain sobriety with the support of our structured living environment. The reality is that the proposed ordinance, while perhaps intended to increase safety, will have the opposite effect. It’s critical to understand that the alternative to our structured, sober living home is not a scenario where these individuals are neatly dispersed into other housing. The hard truth, as we’ve seen, is that for several would mean a return to housing insecurity, potential homelessness. And as you all know, the effects of homelessness are already being felt among one through our rigorous screening process, mandatory therapy, without outside agencies, peer recovery, coaching and community accountability, these men are working incredibly hard to understand who they were, who they are, who they who they want to become, and recognizing the Changes possible. Our program isn’t about them excusing their past behavior. It’s about providing the tools and support necessary to prevent it from happening again. We believe that true and lasting safety comes from facilitating this process of change, not simply pushing people to the margins. We share your goal of a safe, long month. We believe that our approach, written in structure, support and accountability, is a vital part of achieving that goal for us all. As the director of operating system, I’ll borrow solutions and a resident this home, I welcome any engagement from the community. I’m available to address any concerns directly, and I want to hear if community members are observing any actions from our clients that are concerning and need to be addressed. Please do not hesitate to reach out at any time. Thank you. Thank
54:44
you. Greg Stone, you.
55:09
Thank you, Mayor and council members. My name is Greg Stone. I’m a resident at 2200 winding drive. I’m also house lead for the house. And just briefly, I just want to say I was incarcerated for eight years, and prior to being released on parole, finding a house is difficult. Finding a place to live is difficult. Novaras had offered that for me to provide the housing that I needed as a basic need in order for me to get back on my feet. With that being said, I’ve been able to find work, find transportation. I own a car. I, you know, participate in events that mobaris has as pro social activities, to keep us busy, to keep us together, because we understand that when people are anti social and isolate themselves, is when past behaviors can come back up, and that’s something that we prevent by doing things together. I’ve been able to stay sober now. I’ve had an addiction to numerous drugs for over 20 years of my life. I’ve been sober now for eight and I know that with the peer coaching that mobaras offers, and also my drug and alcohol treatment and other treatment programs that I’m in, that that wouldn’t have been possible, that’s what I have. Thank you.
56:57
Thank you. Greg Sean Stokes, I
57:15
I may have packing council members. My name is Sean Stokes. Sean, would you mind pulling that microphone up? My name is Sean Stokes. I live at 1760 sunlight, drive. Live in the same neighborhood. I am a certified recovery coach, and I am very familiar with these type of things. What I would like to say is this, just to refresh everybody’s memory. We all know what predators are. They go from owls to wolves. Nothing against the wildlife. It’s what they do. What we have to understand what a predator is, and so if they have a minor offense of being in public or something like that. That’s a totally different designation than SVP sexually violent predator. And I believe that the Department of Corrections state Colorado has a facility strictly for them. It’s called Fremont, and so if they think that they need to be separated and dealt with in a correctional environment, then we would be considered general population or the general public. So I believe that we should take that into account if the Department of Corrections wants to have that same separation. I don’t understand why we can’t have that as a community. We have to keep our citizens safe. We have to keep our kids safe. We have to keep the stay stay at home moms safe, and we have to keep everybody safe. And with this ordinance, I hope that the setbacks are within yards, not feet. So 500 feet, wow, how about 1000 yards? That would be more. I mean, it sounds like it’s overbearing, but when it comes to certain types of sex offenders, it is definitely something that the Department of Corrections, the people that house them when they are incarcerated, they chose a facility and then it’s in Fremont. So I would just like to point out those facts and let everybody know. You know that. You mull it over, you think about it, it’s going to be more apparent to you if you actually see what the numbers really are. So I thank you very much, and thank you for letting me speak.
59:47
Thank you. Sean Judy Atwood, hi.
1:00:00
Hi, good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Judy Atwood, and I’m a survivor of sexual abuse. My address is 1145, Rodriguez court and also 460, Morgan road, the other house that nobody’s talking about here tonight. Morgan road has five sex offenders, and I’m here to share my story. I didn’t write a script. My story is pretty bleak. I moved away from my abuser in 2013 into an apartment here in Longmont. I was robbed, had my car stolen and my apartment broken into excuse me at the time, I was dating a man who brought 460 Morgan road for me and my kids. We lived there for one day. We found out that next door was five sexual predators. We had to move out. I’m here today to talk about what nobody else is really talking about is the psychological factor that impacts children and people like me, who are survivors of sexual abuse, when we wake up and find out that we’re living by sex offenders. So for that, I’d like you to reconsider existing homes with sex offenders.
1:01:36
Thank you. Thank you. Judy. John cracker, no cat, no clapping. Thank you.
1:01:55
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Peck. My name is John cracker. I live at 403 Olympia Avenue in Longmont. The city of Longmont is allowing a sex offender treatment center be put in a residential neighborhood as an experiment. If this experiment goes bad and we find a dead, naked child in the neighborhood who is going to be responsible for that abomination, I can tell you when this happens, the residents will sue the city of Walmart for not enacting ordinances against sexual offender treatment centers in residential neighborhoods. This treatment center is very close to Central Park and rough and ready park where children play. There are eight. Count them, eight sexual offenders living in a treatment center in a residential neighborhood. This is wrong and it must be prohibited. Thank you.
1:02:45
Thank you. John Alex Mead,
1:02:59
my name is Alex messiad. Oh, sorry, and I live at 509th Ave long mom before I begin. I just want to say there’s a lot of fear in this room. I’m nervous to speak right now, and I also want to share that I’m also a victim of sexual abuse. I’ve been a psychotherapist for the past nine years who specializes in trauma, both in private practice and in court mandated treatment with individuals who have committed sexual offenses. I also work with the general population and hold a deep belief in restorative justice as a path to healing, not only for survivors, but also for families, for communities and for those who have caused harm. I want to start by saying that I understand the fear, I understand the instinct to want to protect your family and your neighborhood. These concerns are real and valid, but I also want to invite us to look deeper, because fear alone can’t be the foundation of our decisions if we truly want safety and healing. The label sex offender is an umbrella term. Not all people have committed sexual offenses have harmed children. It covers a vast range of behaviors, and every situation is different, and the story behind every individual is often more complicated than what appears on a public registry. The men I work with are not monsters. A few of them have been victims themselves of sexual abuse. Many are fathers, they have partners, they hold jobs, attend therapy weekly and are monitored closely through probation and parole. They are often more supervised than most people realize, and many are working incredibly hard to rebuild their lives and take accountability for past harm. We have to ask ourselves, What does redemption look like in our community? If someone has served their time undergone treatment and is showing up to do the difficult work of healing. How do we as a society support them? How do we hold space for them and hold them accountability and the possibility of change? I worry that when we fight against stable housing options for these individuals, we unintentionally create more of a risk displacement, isolation and instability can lead to regression. Action. On the other hand, supportive living environments like those provided by Mubarak solutions offer structure, connection and purpose. These homes are not a free for all. They are regulated, supervised and therapeutic. They reduce risk, not increase it. They hold each other accountable, encourage each other to grow. I also want to name the role of stigma and media driven narratives that shape public perception, the vast majority of people labeled as sex offenders do not reoffend, but we rarely hear those stories. We rarely hear about the men who have maintained sobriety, feel deep remorse, who volunteer in their community, who is working quietly and humbly to make amends. These are real people, not headlines. I believe in community dialog and transparency, I’m open to voluntarily facilitating restorative justice circles where people can ask questions, express concerns, and witness what real change can look like. Bridging the Gap takes courage from all of us. It’s not easy, but if we want safer communities, we need to invest not just in control, but in connection. Thank you. Thank you. Alex
1:06:01
Nathan, dresser,
1:06:15
good evening. My name is Nathan dressner. I live at 2200 2205 winding drive. I’m here to speak to you today about the sex offender ordinance that you’re looking at putting into place. I want to thank you for all the efforts that you guys have taken over the last couple of months to try and put a, you know, a well thought out and planned, you know, set of restrictions and the thoughtfulness that you put into things, the addition of the occupancy limits, I think was really positive a few weeks ago. You know, I really appreciate, you know, the fact that you know, you you heard what a lot of the community said, and took it, took it, you know, took that seriously. As a couple people have said, there’s now eight offenders living in the home. I mean, you’ve heard today also that people from across the city are testifying and really encouraging you to pass this ordinance. I mean, I think it’s really important, just from a public safety standpoint, that we we do this and and make this happen this evening. So I really appreciate you know you’re hopefully a yes vote this evening. One one final thought that I want to leave you with is, be really nice to know when a manageable population, like, as, as I mentioned, there’s eight of them living in the in the household right now, and it’s a six bedroom house, you know, like, I can’t imagine that’s, that’s pretty tight, like, I can’t imagine that’s real positive for, you know, therapeutic environment, you know, I, I would be great to hear, you know, like, what some of the norms are of, you know, other facilities that are like this, and what, what, you know, like some, I believe I know, Representative Hopkin, you you’d ask some questions at one point of them, trying to find out Some details, and you didn’t get any answers, but I just worry that that’s that’s not really a positive environment, so it’d be great to hear when that that count might be dealt with. So appreciate it. Thank you.
1:08:12
Thank you. Nathan Gary Hodges, you
1:08:23
good evening, Mayor, City Council, Gary Hodges, 2148 Stewart street. So I’m also speaking on the topic we’ve been hearing about tonight. So you guys are in tough position. This is one of those needles that I’m not sure is really possible to thread. It’s more like a sledgehammer approach it seems to be taking. So we’re here because of the disaster of Senate Bill 23, 213, a couple years ago that was initiated, and while the previous council did not support that when it came, came before you guys, when Sandy, I guess, asked you guys for support, my recollection is that this body did support all the parts of it that came back, piece, piece by piece in the in the next the following year, and I don’t quite remember, but was one of those lifting the limit of unrelated adults living in a house former mayor Marsha Martin, and she was a big advocate of that bill. And of course, all those things. So a couple people notwithstanding, a couple people tonight on these topics, these discussions that have occurred here. I haven’t really heard any evidence that buffer zones have some positive impact or on recidivism, but it is what some warrant quite clearly, and that seems to be where you guys are headed. And that’s all well and good, except the buffer zones will create pockets and slivers throughout the city. And looking at that map and the attachment, I’m just estimating that it’s around 20% maybe 15 or 20% of the city’s what’s going to be left. I. Let’s see. So, so it’s just picking, you’re just picking winners and losers based on what others have done and what feels right. And it turns out that my street is one of those slivers of the city that’s going to be exposed and spoken with a couple others on my street that in total, have five children under the age of five, and both were really concerned about what’s going on, and they wanted to be here, but circumstances prevented them from coming. But the point is that there’s a lot of voices out there that are concerned that you’re not hearing everyone has to live somewhere. We recognize that buffer zones are only going to shift the individuals around the city. It’s more diversified. It would be more diversified now. And you know, instead, we might concentrate it. And so whatever your take is on that. I mean, it seems like that would be a negative. So instead of the buffer zones, I think we should go after the that rule that the liberalization of the unrelated adults that can live in a residence. I don’t know how you might do that. I haven’t really thought about it too much honestly, but maybe petition the state legislature to see if we can get them to rescind that rule. I think it’s just a bad rule, and we’re seeing problems not related to sex offenders, but multiple people living in houses. It’s kind of starting to happen to a house on my street now, but I’ll say, if it’s going to be buffer zones, you know, why pick winners and losers? Why not just pick all winners and just expand the areas around your city parks and daycare centers and make it, you know, a mile around each one of those. And just make it so nobody, you know, nobody can live anywhere. That’s a bit flippant, but thank you.
1:11:51
Thanks. Gary. Steve Altshuler,
1:12:00
Steve Altshuler, Steve altar, 1555 Taylor drive, have a couple rhetorical questions, and maybe this has come up before, and you guys have resolved it, I’m not sure. But when all this information about the sexual predators in the houses started to come to light, we heard that in Boulder there was something. I might be off by one or two numbers, but roughly 96 or 98 sexual predators lived in Boulder, in the city of Boulder, or 286 living in Longmont. So my question is, what criteria are used to decide how many people, how many Sexual predators can live in Longmont. Could that never be 1200 86 5286 what is the criteria that’s being used? I thought I’d heard someone mention after session that boulder only allows one every 1500 and long mine allows one every 500 and I was doing a little math in my head because it didn’t quite compute. My thought is that both cities have roughly 100,000 people, but that wouldn’t be the right number either. So I’m guessing that maybe it was one out of 500 kids under 18, because that would be roughly 30,000 and that might be an appropriate number. So I don’t know if you guys know that, but what criteria is used for deciding how many Sexual predators can live in a city? If boulders number is different than one month’s number, that means it’s not a state sanctioned number, it’s just a number that somebody came up with. So instead of one out of 500 Why don’t we make it one out of 20,000 and then we can limit sexual predators in one month of five people. But that’s just the way I tend to think. But again, the question is, and maybe you’ve answered that amongst yourselves, what is the criteria for deciding how many Sexual predators can live in Longmont? We’re talking about how many can be in a house, how many could be how far from a school or a park. But I think this other number needs to be put into consideration also. So even if you decide 500 yards from a park, what’s the stop the city from having, like I said, 2000 sexual predators, 10 times more than where we’re at now. So I just bring that up as another something to consider when you’re looking at making some regulations about this problem. Thank you.
1:14:36
Thank you, Steve, seeing no one else on the list, I’m going to close first call, public, invited to be heard. I do want to make a statement, though, for all of you out there, the laws that have been made are on the state level, and we have to follow the state. So I suggest, because the the legislature in is ending at the end of May, and all of our legislators are going to be writing. New bills this summer and into the fall. So I suggest that you find out who these Bill what these bills are, and if you don’t like them, contact your legislature, legislators to have them amended or totally changed. That is the best way. That is the best way to get laws that we can actually follow. So thank you. We are now. Do we need a five minute break? I think we are going to take a short break here and allow our Japanese contingents to decide whether they want to stay or is there something more fun in the city that they would like to do tonight than sit at the council Meeting? So thank you. We’ll We’ll back At 816. You
1:22:50
We are back in session and we’re ready to attack this ordinance, yeah, sneak attack, yeah. That.
1:23:07
There are so we are now going to look at this ordinance, to look at the proposed amendments to title 10 as they are presented. But I want to remind council that what we but what staff is looking for when we address this is to either approve this the amendments as they are presented, do not approve the amendments to title 10 as presented, or approve proposed amendments to title 10 with changes, and then we will vote on it tonight, and it looks like Jeremy Tyler is going to give us a presentation. Mayor,
1:23:49
can I interject quick, please? I just want to give a reminder that second reading of this ordinance will be on May 20. Okay?
1:23:55
Thank you very much, Crystal.
1:24:00
Jeremy, good evening, mayor and council. Jeremy Terrell, Assistant City Attorney, thanks. So I’m here just to give a brief presentation about the ordinance that’s in the council’s packet and hopefully answer some of the questions and kind of dissect what everything in the ordinance means for council as well as members of the public. Okay, so in our current draft, which is based on Council’s prior directions over the last couple meetings, there’s four affected categories of registered sex offenders. The first is sexually violent predators. Those are persons determined by state law and Department of Corrections to be sexually violent and more likely to re offend. So that’s a statutory term. The next one is sex offenders with multiple victims, sex offenders multiple offenses. And the last category is sex offenders with felonies involving minors. Council also directed us to include setback requirements of 1000 feet for schools and daycares. In a 500 foot setback for public and private parks. And I believe councils meeting last week or the week before Council gave further direction to add in a limit on the number of unrelated sex, registered sex funders may live together, and council direction was no more than three. So looking at kind of the big picture, big picture implementation, all registered sex offenders are required to register with local police department, which bear our Longmont Police Department. When a sex offender registers, they’ll provide an address for Longmont police. Longmont police will check for compliance against the setback map that planning development services has created, and I’ll show you in a second. And they’ll also verify that there’s not more than that. There’s not three or more registered sex offenders already at that address. As a reminder, this ordinance is drafted before looking meaning that if a person subject to the ordinance currently resides within a setback with three or more registered sex offenders, or if a new school, daycare park opens, that person is allowed to continue to reside there, but must comply with the ordinance when he or she moves. And this is just important because we are imposing criminal offenses for violations of this ordinance, and we don’t want to have a situation when we’re criminalizing conduct that occurred already but wasn’t yet a crime that could be considered be a violation of the Constitution, just in kind of general terms. On the note of violations and penalties, the ordinance is drafted such that a violation will result in a summoning Municipal Court, and the court may impose penalties of a fine up to $500 and imprisonment of up to 90 days or both. There’s a couple exceptions drafted in the ordinance. First is registered sex offenders do not fit one of the four categories identified, so if the person who’s required to register is not an SVP, doesn’t have multiple convictions, doesn’t have multiple victims, and doesn’t have a felony involving a minor, they’ll not be subject to this ordinance. Also not subject to source and ordinance are people who are convicted of sex offenses who are no longer required to register. So for certain sexual offenses, you can petition the court to have your lifetime registration requirement lifted. And the way this ordinance is draft is that once that registration requirement is lifted, you’re no longer subject to the ordinance as well, and it’s primarily from an enforcement standpoint, because once you’re not required to register, we have no way of knowing where you live, and therefore, long my police department wouldn’t know that they’re in violation of the ordinance. And the last exception was registered sex offenders place as part of a state licensed foster care program, and this is because the state has preemption over foster care placements, and so if the state decides to place a youth in their custody in a certain location, we have to allow that even if it violates our local ordinance. So based on the setbacks, what I mentioned previously, which was 1000 feet for schools and daycares, and 500 feet for public parks and private parks. Here’s what the setback map looks like. So on this map, schools, our school setbacks are in that kind of yellow, orangish color. Daycares are in blue and private and city parks, also known as public parks are in green. So anywhere within that green, blue or orange, yellow areas are places where sex offenders would not be allowed to live, based on the current setback requirements, and this would be in addition to that numerical of three or more unrelated sex offenders limit. So in terms of what staff is looking for tonight, this is a first reading of an ordinance. Under our charter, we are required to have two readings, so a first reading and a second reading slash public hearing. So the real question for tonight is, does council want to proceed with the current draft ordinance for second reading and public hearing? If not, does council want to either modify the draft ordinance to be then read at second reading public hearing, or do we want to end discussion of this issue? I’m here tonight to answer questions along with Chief artists. We have some of our sex offender registration staff in the Paloma Police Department, and we also have director Pacheco the human services here as well. Director Penland had a family emergency, so I can also cover some of the planning development services questions. Thank you.
1:29:30
Thank you. Jeremy, are there any questions from counselors? Uh, comes Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo ferry, because I had to reboot my computer twice. I do not see you at all, so
1:29:43
I forgot to unmute my I forgot to change my camera. If you,
1:29:49
if you have a question, will you just please call my name or one of our counselors will let us know that your hand is raised. Oh,
1:29:55
yeah, I can do that. I have you. Are we okay? I
1:29:59
don’t know what. You did, Jeremy, but thanks. Yeah, we’re good. So are there any questions from councilors about this ordinance? Do you want to amend it? Do you want to accept it? Councilor McCoy, Thank
1:30:17
you, Mayor pick Jeremy, what was brought up earlier tonight by by some, some folks towards the end there, specifically Gary Hodges, he brought up something in regards to these slivers and and I think there’s a lot of value to what he said. And that was the issue around, how do we, how do we not make certain areas of town, you know, a the haven for this where then that would make it would just move the problem. I’m in support of limiting the number of of sex offenders in one house, because I kind of see things in a way that that this is a with the current situation with mobile solutions is that right that you know this is we have business districts in our community, and we don’t typically try To locate businesses in our residential areas, unless we have done that sort of zoning prior to this and and I feel like there’s a big mismatch there with that. So how do we how do we fix this, so that you know we’re we’re not just moving the problem? Is there a way we can zone this that how many houses can be, you know, across the city, in in zones as well, and then say, in each zone there can be no more than one, or that sort of thing is that, is that something that could be added?
1:32:18
Good evening. Council member McCoy, you know, I think this comes down to the policy question for city council to answer. I mean, unfortunately, we put a setback, and there’s the unintended consequences of perhaps moving registered sex offenders or limiting other areas of the city we know from case law and speaking in generalities and not giving legal advice on an open meeting that we can’t ban every registered sex from the city of Longmont that’s not allowed under state law, generally speaking. So we’re left with the issue of, you know, what do we think is most important from a policy and public safety and that kind of perspective? So I think the last one meeting, city council identified some key areas where they felt that, you know, deserve some extra special protection, which were the schools, daycares and parks. We can certainly revisit those special areas where we feel extra protection is needed. But unfortunately, that’s just the way the ordinance and as adopted by their cities, is kind of shapen out. We have some areas that will result in the bar and other areas where sex offenders might have to move to. I don’t have a great solution for it, unfortunately, okay, I think
1:33:27
one of the things, if Council will remember, when we presented early on on this topic, we had the interactive map, and we went over different distances, and the direction that council gave us was on this distance, but we did present different options to council in terms of what you could look at.
1:33:48
Thank you.
1:33:54
Seeing no one else in the queue to discuss this. Let’s answer the questions that Jeremy presented, those are the two things that we actually need to discuss.
1:34:17
I’m sorry. We’re I’m still having these computer issues. You this council want to proceed with this current draft ordinance for a second reading and public hearing, and if so, I need a motion. If not, Council, does council want to modify the Draft Draft ordinance or into this discussion? Both of these need a motion. Councilor Popkin,
1:34:49
Thank you, Mayor Peck I will. I will take a stab at this and make a motion to to amend the draft ordinance before we proceed. Feet to 500 feet. Across the board,
1:35:04
you’re amending it to 500 feet, correct for
1:35:07
for all of the facilities that we have referenced here, and
1:35:10
not the one you want to eliminate the 1000 feet.
1:35:13
Well, it’s changing it. The amendment is to modify it from 1000 to
1:35:18
500 feet. Okay, yeah. So did you? Is that a motion?
1:35:21
It is a motion, and I’ll explain the rationale for that in a moment. I’ll second
1:35:26
it for the discussion. Appreciate it. So councilor Popkin made a motion to amend this ordinance to 500 feet as far as being near child care, parks, etc, on on the interactive map that you showed
1:35:44
correct all the facilities that we had already identified. Okay,
1:35:47
so it’s open for discussion. Matthew, you want to explain Sure,
1:35:54
making this motion to kick start this conversation. First of all, I want to just thank all the residents who came out to speak tonight and in previous meetings, including mothers, fathers, victims of sexual abuse, sex offenders, treatment specialists and others, all of you are part of this community and are our neighbors. I also want to thank the many residents who reached out via email and other specialists that we got emails from on this topic, I did actually hear back from the Sex Offender Management Board eventually, which I shared. It was not particularly helpful, but I did get information and response. There wasn’t the information I was hoping. I had asked really like, what are the policies that are most productive for local governments to put in place? I didn’t get particular clarity. They sent me some research papers. I have read those, but that was not ideally what I wanted to hear from experts. I’m making this motion because I’m really not convinced that the 1000 feet setback is grounded in anything substantive and meaningful, and if my fellow council members disagree. I would love to hear why 750 feet or 1000 feet would be better, and what that’s based on. I think that there isn’t I, I understand the value of having some type of restriction, but the data and the evidence and the research findings that I am hearing from different surveys and research studies does not indicate particular efficacy there. And so I’m unconvinced that there are particular benefits to certainly doing 1000 feet over 750, or 500 and possible harms that could result from that which we have not talked about. But really should. I’ll read a few excerpts, because I don’t have time to read a study out in public here after controlling for several demographic factors, results indicate that 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, suggesting that the residence restriction did not achieve its intended goal of reducing recidivism. One of the most compelling factors discovered in this research was that in 16 years in discharging sex offenders from the prison, none of the recidivists who returned due to a set new sex offense resulted from contact with juvenile victims near a school, park or daycare. Residency restrictions produced barriers to successful re entry and desistance by limiting housing and employment options and severing family ties, the imposition of residents restrictions may increase the risk. May increase the risk of re offense by forcing sex offenders to live in communities where positive support systems may not exist and they may be removed from accessible resources or live in remote areas, providing them with high degrees of anonymity. These are from universities, the US Department of Justice, the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, among some. What I’ve heard from these studies and from other experts is that stable housing and positive support really matter. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t value to some of what we’re considering, but we need to think about the perceived impacts and the very real consequences that we could have with this decision tonight, we are not making the tonight’s ordinance is not or the ordinance we’re considering is not about a specific address or a specific program. It is about a city wide policy, and that’s what we need to consider. I have one question for staff before I yield to questions or other comments on this. Jeremy, we talked about this before, and I just want to ask line 17 to 19 of the ordinance state the following, removing such offenders from regular proximity to places where children are located and limiting the frequency of contact is likely to reduce the risk of an offense. My question for you is, what is that based on
1:39:43
good evening council member Popkin, that is based off another ordinance, I believe, adopted by the city of North Glen. I do think council should consider adopting some sort of public interest statement indicating why it wants to adopt an ordinance, but certainly that language is just copied from another jurisdiction. Action and council may modify as it sees fit. Thank you,
1:40:04
Jeremy, I appreciate that. I’m not against parts of this ordinance. I think we want to make sure that what we are doing are supported by research and evidence, and that our justifications for it are recognizing that we are balancing numerous community needs at once here. So if you disagree with changing this to 500 feet, I would love to know why and why 700 a different number is more valuable or important to this community. I’ll use my time.
1:40:38
Thank you. Maybe you can answer me this question, what do you think the unintended consequences are? I’m just trying to make sure I’m following you correctly.
1:40:52
Sure actually, you spoke to one of them before, which was creating these pockets. Oh, okay, that’s one. And I’d say so it’s what’s the impact to the entire community as a whole. And the second piece is, what’s the impact to the if our goal really is to protect people and provide for public safety, then the goal should be to reduce recidivism as most effectively as possible. And if that is the goal, and I support that goal 100% then we should be looking at what’s most likely to actually protect public safety of everyone involved and reduce recidivism. So that would be the unintended consequence of reducing housing stability, for instance, and creating less fewer options that make it harder for people to find housing or have stable housing, that actually increases the risk level, at least, according to some of the studies I’ve read, but I’d welcome other studies that prove
1:41:40
otherwise. Thank you.
1:41:46
Councilor Christ I
1:41:50
thought I was just getting in the queue. So councilor Popkin, thank you for being so mindful in all your comments, I would say that right now, given the situation in this neighborhood, that housing is unstable. There’s a lot of tension there for everyone, and neighborhoods, in neighborhoods, all the people that live there need to be comfortable to some degree. Now, it needs to be noted that there are many cities around us that all have ordinances regarding sex offenders. I’ll just name Mead and birth it and Firestone. But also, Lafayette has had one on the books far longer and North Glen, and they have all assumed 1000 foot distances. I don’t think it has anything to do with recidivism so much as it has to do with a feeling of comfortableness in the neighborhood, and because there are so many cities that have adopted this, I have to believe it’s a bit of a universal problem that’s going to keep coming back. I will say that I know that that this, there were, there are other homes in Longmont, where the neighborhoods are fine with them being there, and I think it’s because they’re less family oriented, not as close to schools. So I was talking with a gal on the west side, where there was a home over there, and I said, were you aware there was a home over there? And she said, Oh yeah, yeah. We didn’t think anything of it, but it was, it’s all mature neighborhood. So I think there are places where community, communities, community, neighborhoods can be more comfortable. And I think that’s better for all the participants, sex offenders and non sex offenders families, you know. And I think we have to learn to coexist. And we have created a space in Longmont for everyone by utilizing this map. And there are actually quite a few spaces where people can move. So I am comfortable with 1000 feet, just because, you know, there’s a lot of space between schools and residents, and it gives them that space to walk to and from school.
1:44:38
Councilor Rodriguez,
1:44:41
Thank you, Mayor Peck. First of all, I’d like to thank Council Member Popkin for bringing forth the conversation about actually vetted research papers versus, you know, feelings, which I think is important. Important when we’re dealing with a city wide, policy and feelings are important, and I understand the fear that is based in the community surrounding this, which is why this has come so far, and why I also voted to move it forward. At the time, I agree with council member Popkin, though, that we might have gotten a little bit over running a little bit in front of our headlights as far as the distance requirements, because when I look at that map, I feel that it unduly affects what would be some of our more historical neighborhoods because they were not built as HOAs and HOAs synonymously build private parks, and private parks were part of the distance requirements that we proposed public parks, private parks. And so you will see that HOA newer communities generally, are much more covered by the distance limitations that we have put forward because of those private parks. And therefore, like Gary Hodges, who I do not believe, lives in an HOA neighborhood, myself, who doesn’t live in an HOA neighborhood, my house is in one of those pockets that would be allowed for these kinds of residents homes, these congregate living facilities, our homes. I know facilities upset some members of the public, but the point being is that we are picking winners and losers. I agree with that statement and the quote, unquote losers, not that I consider them. Losers are generally older homes, which would be technically the more attainable housing or affordable housing that has been referenced so many times by members of the public, the newer HOA style neighborhoods are going to be newer homes more expensive than the neighborhoods that are generally going to be affected by the overlay of the map. So I would be supportive of council member Popkins amendment. And then my second, I guess I do have a question, is whether, based on some of the communication we’ve gotten specifically about SRM B and the white papers and such are we going to split, or, as council member Popkin, going to split the amendment between congregate living versus distance requirements, because that all seems to be part of one one ordinance. So I’m curious about that.
1:47:59
Councilor Popkin, that’s
1:48:01
a very fair question. Councilor, Councilmember Rodriguez, I appreciate that I at this time, I was focusing more on the distance, setback that was put on place for my motion. I’d be open to discussion on other thoughts, on shared living arrangements. At this time, I was focusing on the setback and the what I felt were actually risks to the community if we go too far on this
1:48:27
council. Rodriguez, I’m sorry to butt in for just a moment, but I’m going to do it anyway. Okay, so I think his question was, if I understand him correctly, do we want to split this? Are you talking about splitting the ordinance, or because everything’s in 1am, I correct in that assumption?
1:48:47
Thank you, Mayor Peck I was just probably expecting amendments on both fronts, to be honest with you, or proposed amendments on both fronts, and so that’s why I was asking that question of council member Popkin, because I personally have probably more of an issue with the congregate living than the distance requirement, but that that’s me, because we’ve seen empirical data over and over again saying that congregate living does not, in fact, probably has a negative effect on recidivism versus, you know, an exponential effect on recidivism, which is very important when we talk about sex offenders, because they’ve already been caught once, right? We have to understand there’s sex offenders who’ve never been caught. You the ones that are going to be most likely to offend versus recidivism, and that’s one that bears out in the the research that’s been done, recidivism of convicted sex offenders is one of the lowest percentages of recidivism. Issue for crime in general, based on these research papers, and congregate living provides accountability. The case that came up recently at Fort Collins about the person who abducted and was holding a person was not living in a congregate living facility. There’s no accountability. And so I would think that there’s got to be at least one person in a Congre living facility that worries enough about their liberty to point out oversteps by their fellow roommates, if you will, or housemates. And so I would think that that provides, again, that layer of accountability that will provide more protection to the community than people who are living solo with these offenses. Also, I just want to talk about, specifically, the possibility of homelessness, because we find that folks who have these kinds of convictions, who are homeless, are much, much more likely to reoffend, usually, unfortunately, against other homeless people and so therefore not reported as often. But that is recidivism, and escalates exponentially in homeless states versus Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where you have secure housing, you have that security to find a job and and to provide for yourself, and have that self determinacy, that self sufficiency. And so these are all the reasons why I have more of a problem with the congregate living issue of restriction than the the distance requirement restrictions. Thank you.
1:51:53
Thank you for clarifying that at this time I was making an amendment specifically on the setback piece. I’ve also seen that research as well. My understanding of the current ordinance is that we’re not doing away with shared living. It’s just reduced down to three. I don’t know what the right number is there. So if, if someone would like to also propose an amendment on that, I’d be open to that discussion as to what that right constructive and productive shared living arrangement number threshold is for now, I’ll stick with the motion that I have made on just 500 feet. Across the board, I think that balance is very real public safety concerns that I’ve heard alongside also very real public interest here of not unduly risking increasing housing stability and homelessness. I’ve seen ordinances that go higher in distance and ordinances that go lower. I have not seen justification for specific distance. And so what I was curious to know from my fellow council members here and was, is there a particular reason why it would be beneficial to go higher, because I can think of a very real, very real reasons why it would be detrimental to go higher.
1:53:11
Councilor crest.
1:53:15
So we’re having discussion about facts and data that we don’t have in front of us, but I do have one of the flyers that that you got from the sex offender regulation board and sent to us, and thank you for doing that back work. But it does say, and this was curious to me, because I like to see where the parameters of data, because it tells me something about, you know, the information. It has a box here on the on the second page, which says the vast majority of sex crimes happen in social relationship context, research with large groups shows place of residence is not a big factor. So I’m just saying it’s okay to have setbacks, because pushing you think those are pushing this to certain areas, but where they live is not that big of a problem. But what’s concerning to me is there’s a chart here that talks about recidivism and how it’s it’s not necessarily related. However, all the data here is not zero. There’s recidivism in all of these categories, and the biggest percentage is with a shared residence. That’s the first one on the list. That’s 17% and the next 10% is in the offenders home. So now you have 27% if you add those together. Then another 6% is in a neighborhood. We’re up to 30
1:55:06
over 30% 33 I’m
1:55:12
sorry I don’t have my glasses on. So those are the ones that really concern me, because that’s what we’re talking about here. I I’m in favor of going forward with the ordinance as written.
1:55:32
Council pumpkin, this is your last three minutes.
1:55:38
I won’t need that. I won’t need that much time. I appreciate the data that you were bringing in from the reports that I sent around from somb. I wasn’t quite following your point on the distance. Piece of that. I think I understood the point you were making on the shared living arrangements. Again, my motion specifically was just on the setback, not on the shared living arrangement. If we want to discuss that separately. I would welcome any council member to propose that
1:56:10
seeing no one else in the queue. We need, I need, we need to vote on the motion that councilor Popkin made and it it was to amend the ordinance to have a 500 foot setback across the board for all of the sex offenders mentioned in the ordinance. Counselor Rodriguez, you had mentioned. Did you want to make another amendment to this? Or not? It
1:56:38
would not be appropriate until after this. All right,
1:56:41
so let’s vote all those in Okay, go ahead and vote. Mine’s going to be a yes. That’s all
1:56:58
coming up. Yes. I
1:57:06
Susie, did you can’t hear you? Mayor Pro Tem hit on preparing, I can’t hear you,
1:57:18
so I’m voting nay on reducing it to 500 Okay,
1:57:24
all those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay.
1:57:41
Okay, so That motion passes with Councilor Crist councilor Hidalgo, ferrying, and no, I’m sorry I said this wrong with myself. Mayor pack, Matthew Popkins, Councilor Rodriguez, Councilor Yarbrough, voting in favor and opposing it is councilor Chris, Councilor Hidalgo ferry and councilor McCoy. So that passes. The amendment is 500 feet across the board. Nothing else so far has been changed in the ordinance. But I do see councilor Rodriguez.
1:58:19
Thank you, Mayor Peck I think I’ve gone over it pretty thoroughly as far as my position, so I will make the motion to amend the ordinance to remove the congregate living restriction.
1:58:35
Do I have a second? The motion dies for elector the second okay counselor, counselor Popkins seconded that. So the motion was made by councilor Rodriguez to amend the congregate to remove the congregant restrictions from the proposed ordinance seconded by councilor Popkin,
1:59:09
Councilor Crist, just
1:59:10
for clarification, so the amended setbacks passed, yes, and now we are discussing whether we restrict to three in a living arrangement.
1:59:32
So what is your discussion?
1:59:35
I just need to sign post where we were.
1:59:37
Oh, you would just clarify. Okay, thank you. Councilor Popkin, did you have yours? Okay? Councilor McLaren, turn it on again, please. Yeah, just
1:59:47
trying to think of what I’m
1:59:50
gonna say. Okay, somebody else would like to speak. No one else is in the queue. No pressure. I.
2:00:00
And my computers being
2:00:06
my fault, seeing no one else in the queue, I going to say we need to vote on the motion made by councilor Rodriguez. And the motion again, was to amend the ordinance to remove the re the requirement.
2:00:30
So how does Jeremy? Maybe you can answer this in just so the public understands, if we have an ordinance that has limited three how does that affect the current situation in the current housing
2:00:57
councilor member, McCoy, so The ordinance is forward looking. So any, any current sex offender, registered sex offenders, who reside with three or more unrelated registered sex offenders would allow, would continue to be allowed to reside there until they move. So I want to make sure that just the clarify the point it’s on. It’s the ordinance impacts the registered sex offenders, not the house itself. So in like the land use and zoning context, we talk about grandfathering residences, the residents, you know, let’s just take 2200 winding drive as an example, the residents would be grandfathered in. Any of the all the residents currently at that facility be grandfathered in. But if one of them were to move out, someone couldn’t back fill that spot, because they would then be in conflict with that three or more restriction. So and the person who moves that would be then subject to the ordinance would have to be at least 500 feet away from the protected areas we previously identified and couldn’t reside with three or more. Does that answer the question, yeah,
2:01:55
I just want to make sure the public understood what’s going on with this specifically.
2:02:03
Councilor Hopkin,
2:02:07
yeah, thank you. I had a maybe a clarifying question again for maybe council member Rodriguez, or other council members. I’m trying to remember back to the discussion two weeks ago, when we were talking about why the number three specifically, and so I was wondering if someone could speak to the speak to that rationale. I yeah, I just appreciate clarity on that.
2:02:28
I’m going to call on Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo faring, because she chaired the meeting and she made the motion. If I
2:02:39
Yes, I brought it forward on your behalf.
2:02:41
Okay, thank you. Yeah,
2:02:45
but I can speak a little bit to it, yes, please. Sure. So the reason I had heard an overwhelming number of people talk about no more than two I also heard from people who were okay with four so it sounded like okay. What could be a compromise that would still give people in these homes an opportunity to have connection with other people who reside in there for therapy, recovery purposes and yeah,
2:03:21
so that passed. Yes, it did. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, did that answer your question
2:03:31
more or less reminded me of the conversation we had? Thank you. Okay, thank you.
2:03:35
And if I, if I could just add to that conversation, Mayor Peck I pulled up what’s also in the council’s packet. This is a regulation comparison concern the number of registrants allowed per house. So if you will recall back to some prior discussions of the jurisdiction in the state of Colorado, when I say jurisdictions, city, county, towns, etc, there’s a minority that have regulations concerning registered sex vendors, and then within that small minority is even smaller minority have a restriction number of unrelated registered sex who may reside together. So this is a chart that I believe public safety and planning put together just to show a couple different jurisdictions. I do apologize for the small font having the benefit of my laptop in front of me. I can tell you that looking at some other jurisdictions that, for example, Lakewood doesn’t have any restrictions whatsoever. That means no setbacks, no numerical restrictions. I know that Frederick has a numerical restriction. We see that there are some numerical restrictions in Westminster
2:04:44
and
2:04:48
Broomfield. So there are some jurisdictions and three seems to be about the common number for where the restriction starts to kick in among that smaller minority that have that restriction.
2:04:59
Okay? Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions. Counselor Popkin was that it Okay seeing no other questions in the queue, let’s vote on councilor Rodriguez’s motion to eliminate the residency requirements for number of unrelated people living in a sex offender house. So let’s vote either for or against that Mayor
2:05:31
before we I’m sorry. I was No, that’s fine. I thought I had my hand up. We did. I do have, I do have an additional comment, you know, so I was one that supported the idea of the 1000 setback. Yes, you know, I’m coming at this, and I understand there’s there’s data, and I can, I want to empathize. However, we are also representatives of our constituents, and our constituents have come out in mass, in mass, to tell us to take action and to protect our most vulnerable. Yes, I understand there’s a balance. We’re not kicking people out of the city of Longmont. You know, as an adult, you know, if I didn’t live close to a school, I would have no problem. I don’t have kids in the house. When I had kids in the house, I could take a different perspective. So I want, I also want to make sure that I am hearing those voices, and I want people to know that we are hearing these voices and that we are putting, you know, I am putting that into the policy decisions I’m making. That is why I’m going to vote. No on this one.
2:06:41
Thank you. Let’s vote.
2:06:59
Oh, I’m sorry I am a May, yes,
2:07:11
and that fails with Councilor Rodriguez supporting and everyone else opposing. So it was six to one. Thank you. Is that the direction you needed, Mayor?
2:07:31
You need to amend the word. You need to amend the ordinance, and then we need to pass the ordinance, and first reading with amendments. Okay, so you haven’t changed the number per council that you change the fire the 1000 feet to 500 feet. So we need to amend the ordinance and pass it on first reading.
2:07:53
I think we did amend it. We just, we’ve already amended it for the 1000 feet. So, you
2:08:00
need to pass the ordinance now. Yes, as amended, exactly.
2:08:04
So I move to pass the ordinance as amended. Second that was seconded by councilor Crist, and it looks like councilor Popkin has a question. Yeah, I just had a
2:08:17
procedural question here. I had I had was going to propose some amended language to some of the early part that I quoted from the ordinance that I thought wasn’t particularly apt here, and I had some suggested language. Would that be better done now? Should I send that to staff for second reading? I don’t think it’s particularly contentious. It’s not a policy number. It’s more of the justification for what we are deciding.
2:08:40
So you want to amend the amended ordinance?
2:08:43
Yeah.
2:08:47
No, no, no,
2:08:49
okay, counselor Popkins, so we are going to put a hold on the vote and make your motion. Thank
2:09:00
you. I really don’t think this will be super contentious. I just wanted to clarify some wording that I thought was somewhat potentially misinformation here. So can you tell us what line you’re referring to? Yeah. So I’m looking on page one of the ordinance, lines 17 to 19. It’s that last sentence of that paragraph. It says, removing such offenders from regular proximity to places where children are located, and limiting the frequency of content. Frequency of contact is likely to reduce the risk of an offense. I wanted to propose that we delete that sentence and add the following, balancing public safety concerns alongside public interest of not unduly risking increasing housing instability and homelessness is a priority for the city. I can repeat it, yeah, balancing public safety concerns alongside the public interest of not unduly risking increasing housing instability and homelessness is an important goal. Of the city.
2:10:00
Okay, so that was seconded by councilor Rodriguez. Did you get that that wording down? I
2:10:09
did not. Counselor, can you send that in an email to us? Please? Thank you.
2:10:14
Is there any discussion Seeing none? Let’s vote on that amendment. And the amendment was, and I’m going to ask councilor Popkin to repeat it, the
2:10:27
amendment was to delete the lines or the sentence in line 17 to 19 of the ordinance, and replace that with balancing public safety concerns alongside the public interest of not unduly risking increasing housing instability and homelessness is an important goal of the
2:10:44
city, and I would like legal to before we vote on that. Is there any problem with this? Legally? No, no. Great. Okay, let’s vote all those in favor of amending this ordinance. The language I’m a yes,
2:11:13
I’m also a Yes. I
2:11:20
Okay, and that passes six to one with with Councilor Crist opposing. So now we need to vote to pass the ordinance as amended. I move to pass the ordinance as amended. All right, seeing no discussion. We are going to vote that was seconded by councilor Popkin. And I’m a yes. I
2:12:09
and that passes six to one with Councilor Rodriguez opposing. Thank you very much. I’m now going to turn this over to our city manager, who would like to share some of the steps we took.
2:12:27
I think steps were taking. We’re taking some
2:12:30
we took some we’re taking
2:12:34
so mayor, council there, you know, obviously we talked about that. There’s an operational component to this. And then there’s the policy component you all are working through the operational or the policy components. We’re moving through the operational side as we move through the operational side, and working with our planning department, legal staff information as we’re assessing that is pretty important, and there’s been some questions regarding what staff has requested in terms of information. So on this slide, you can see requests and responses that our planning staff have made to the borrow solutions as we were trying to move through and get to the details of the situation. I’m not going to read this slide. This is really where you can see that as staff and in terms of understanding and having the details we need on the operational side, we began making formal open records request to see what cdhs Jeremy, Colorado, Department of Human Services, so you can see that we made a request to look at licensor certification for that Colorado Department of Human Services indicated that there were, it was no responsive records to that request. We then made a first formal request to car requesting license certification. As you can see, car responded that it was in the certification process as of March 12 and the final inspection was pending. The certification was dependent on corrections that they indicated to us. We also then had follow up core requests to car requesting certification document and applications. Cars response to the core request as the application was not shared and the certification info was provided. We made a subsequent open records request, and we’re told that they’re not a state agency, not subject to Cora. We made a second formal request to both car and Cara Department of Human Services, requesting application documents, contracts, agreements between the state and car and then. The cars response to the second core request as they provided redactive application responses and policies and the redactions included personal contact information, things that we would do in our normal open records request. Colorado Department of Health or Human Services then said we needed to have a $57 payment to complete the request. They did provide documents. Do want to note that they still haven’t provided all the documents we requested under the open records request, and so we are following up on that request as well, and all of this information is inter is important in terms of us really looking at the operational pieces. So I know council had been asking the questions, and this just gives you a sense of what we’ve been going through to request the appropriate information.
2:15:58
Thank you for that. Harold you can see that that there has been a definite effort to find out about the legit legitimacy of the house and what was requested per state. All right, let’s move on to the next part of our agenda, which is the consent agenda and introduction and reading of title by first reading ordinance, will the clerk please read these or the consent agenda into the record the
2:16:40
second reading and public hearing for all ordinances introduced on this consent agenda will be held on May 20, 2025 Item nine a, ordinance 2025 30 a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 120. 25 Item 9b ordinance 2025, 31 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the consent to Vance brand Municipal Airport, lease assignment for hanger parcel H dash 44 a to Doug Lyle. Item 9c ordinance 2025, 32 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the consent demands brand Municipal Airport lease assignment for hangar. Parcel, sh, dash six. Dash t to silver wings at Longmont. HOA LLC, item 90, resolution 2025 dash 21 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and the State Board of the great outdoors Colorado, trust fund for grant funding for the completion of the resilient together project for neighborhood cooling and community building. Item 9e resolution 2025 22 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the state of Colorado Department of local affairs for grant funding for the true north affordable attainable neighborhood project under the affordable home ownership program. And 9f resolution 2025 23 a resolution of the Longmont City Council authoring authorizing agreements between the city of Longmont and First Avenue storage LLC for the purchase of real property at 613 First Avenue and 740 Boston avenue for the first and main transit station facilities project.
2:18:36
Thank you, Crystal. Does council want to pull any of the items from the consent agenda. Councilor Popkin, thank
2:18:42
you. Mary pack, I just wanted to remove items B and C, the two airport leases from the consent agenda. Okay?
2:18:49
Thank you. Do you want to make a motion? Sure?
2:18:52
Seeing no other microphones, and I don’t think I see a hand raised from council member to ferry I’ll make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exceptions of items B and C. So items B and
2:19:03
C. It’s been moved by councilor Popkin and seconded by councilor McCoy to approve the Consent Agenda minus B and C. Let’s Let’s vote.
2:19:18
I’m a yes. I’m sorry.
2:19:22
I also Yes, yes,
2:19:25
I’m sorry, yes, I’m sorry. Who second that
2:19:29
councilor McCoy there?
2:19:45
So we just need councilor Yarbrough and councilor Rodriguez. I know I can’t see it. So that passes unanimously. Yes. Thank you. I.
2:20:02
We’re now on ordinance on second reading and public hearing on any matter. The first one is 0205, 2527 it’s a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of an LPC and water easement and a utility easement generally located west of Sunset Street and north of Donovan drive along the southern boundary of lots one and two, bacon subdivision replat B.
2:20:35
Are there any questions from Council? I do have one Harold is this? Is this for the Habitat for Humanity? Yes. Oh, here she comes.
2:20:55
Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. Molly day, associate planner, yes, this is for the habitat project. Thank you.
2:21:03
Okay, now I’ll open up the ordinance for the public hearing on this ordinance. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment or ask questions about this ordinance? Seeing no one. I’ll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. I move
2:21:21
ordinance 20, 2520 27
2:21:26
I’ll second that this has been moved. 2025, 27 has been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by myself. Let’s vote. Is there any discussion Seeing none. Let’s vote,
2:21:36
yes. Could you do a verbal vote? Yes.
2:21:39
All those in favor say, aye, aye. All those opposed, nay. So this has been, I’m sorry I lost it because I was confused by your name. So this passed six to one, with Councilor Crist opposing. The next one is a bill for an ordinance 2025 28 approving the vacation of a utility easement on parcels A, B and C of a tract of land north of Sunset diagonal business park and west of Fletcher minor subdivision plat generally located southeast of the intersection of Nelson road and fairgrounds road. Are there any questions from Council on this bill? Is there? I’ll open up public hearing now on Bill 2025, dash, 28 is there anyone that would like to comment on this bill? Seeing no one. I’ll close the public hearing on 2025 28 and ask for a motion moved by councilor McCoy seconded by councilor Christ. Let’s vote.
2:23:00
I. Thank you. That passes unanimously,
2:23:09
and that is our last one. We are now at items being removed from the consent agenda. Councilor Popkin, you removed two 9b and 9c
2:23:23
Yes, thank you. This should be pretty quick. I actually have the same question about both ordinances, the same language, since they are both airport leases, this is probably a question for the city attorney, but if airport staff wants to jump in, they’ll be fine. There’s a line in both of the leases. So I’ll just take one of them here. And this is line 17 of the ordinance. It says, whereas the council finds that leasing the premises for the stated purposes in the public interest, I was just wondering if you could clarify what kind of the public interests in these types of lease arrangements are because it feel, to me, like on face value. It feels a little bit like a private Transat, like a city to private transaction. I just want to understand where the city benefits from. This is public
2:24:13
interest. Thank you. Council member, pumpkin Eugene May, city attorney, I think the short answer is, the statute requires a finding by the governing body that lease of municipal property be in the public interest, or the statute actually says best interest of the municipality. I think we see that sort of language in lots of different ordinances providing support for finding a legitimate government purpose. I think there are a number of examples that could be in the public interest. By leasing airport property can generate revenue remaining compliance with Grant assurances spur economic development support the uh. The aviation community, that finding is a legislative finding in support of the ordinance. It is at the discretion of council to determine what is in the public’s interest.
2:25:15
Thank you, Eugene. And maybe just a question, since I’ll ask a similar question, then maybe to our airport manager. Just how do you define public interest from your perspective there, since you think about this every day,
2:25:30
and I would echo essentially what Eugene said, too, same thing. So that was an excellent answer.
2:25:35
So the public interest then that I heard were like revenue for the city, supporting the aviation community, supporting economic development on the airport, indeed. Okay, thank you.
2:25:48
Do you want to move those? Yes, can I move them in concert? I yeah, I think you can, because they’re part of the consent agenda.
2:25:55
Technically, they removed from the consent agenda, I think. But we, we
2:25:59
don’t, when we move the consent agenda, we don’t take each one off separately, okay,
2:26:05
well, that’s my point. Spirit of efficiency. In the
2:26:13
spirit of efficiency and not getting into a debate here with our attorneys, I’ll just motion to approve ordinance 2020, 531, first. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I was trying to get the efficient approval too, but sometimes the discussion might merit more. It
2:26:29
was moved. So excuse me, 9b 2025, 31 was moved by councilor Popkin, seconded by councilor McLay. No more discussion. I don’t see any discussion. Let’s vote
2:26:44
i, i
2:26:46
That passes unanimously. Councilor Popkin,
2:26:50
yes, a motion to approve ordinance 2025, 32 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the consent defense, brand, airport lease, etc.
2:26:59
So it was moved by councilor McLaren, I’m sorry, Councilor Popkin, to move on 9c 2025 dash, 32 seconded by councilor crest. Let’s vote aye, aye. And that passes unanimously. Thank you, Councilor Popkin, we are now at final call, public invited to be heard.
2:27:29
State your name and address, please, and you have three minutes.
2:27:36
Is the song? Oh, yeah.
2:27:42
Good job. So I’m Tiernan Faust. I live in Westminster, Colorado. I’m a probation officer for the state of Colorado, and work here in the 20 Judicial District, which covers Boulder County, including Longmont. I’m here to talk about the sex offense ordinance that has been discussed today. First. Thank you all for having me, and I want to thank all of the Longmont community members that have spoken. I supervise a caseload of folks that have committed sexual crimes and as probation, we share the vision like we we live in the communities with everybody. We want to be safe as well. We want the community to be safe, and the best way that we can go about doing that is implementing the evidence based practices to doing so. And so she’s not going to lost my place here. Yeah, impacting stability of housing will impact the ability for folks to engage effectively with probation and supervision, or, excuse me, with probation and treatment, and that’s for regardless of what crime they’ve committed, whether it be a drug offense or a sexual offense. One of you mentioned the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, if we don’t have stability, we are not going to be able to engage effectively in therapy and behavior change. So we need that foundation of you know, of safety and stability, having you know, been working almost 10 years in this position, they have a high level of accountability when they are living together. Many of my clients will report to me, letting me know what’s going on in the home. Because I think, as Rodriguez mentioned, is they, they value their freedom. They realize if one of their housemates messes up, that they’re all going to be kind of indicted in that in that process. Let’s see here. To move on. Here, it was mentioned earlier, I believe by by Popkin that ordinances can have an adverse effect by tearing families apart. Unfortunately, even the probation terms and conditions have been revised to reflect reflect this, because it. Used to be, regardless of what sex offense you committed, you could not have contact with any minors period, including your own children, and so we were ripping families apart. That has been amended because we want to take a harm repair approach in our community supervision. We want to heal the community, in addition to holding people accountable and they are not exclusive concepts. In fact, they have to be intertwined. And so I really hope that and that ordinances are passed that really support supervision and treatment to work with these folks. Earlier, I’m running out of time here. There is references to what ordinances have been passed in other cities, which is a great source of reference, but it doesn’t mean that they’re effective, and it doesn’t mean that they’re quote, unquote, right? And so I encourage the council to really do the best to balance the feelings and hearing what the people are saying as well as what’s really going to actually have the community be safe. Thank you.
2:31:06
Come on down state your name and address.
2:31:13
My name is Carol peoples. I live at 1250 North Humboldt Street in Denver, Colorado. I am the founder of a nonprofit called remerge. I founded it to in order to reduce recidivism. I provide a statewide re entry website for people coming out of incarceration. I am the author of a statewide re entry guide for people coming out of the jails and prisons. I’ve worked on this for about 20 years. This is one of the hardest topics in the area of re entry to have a conversation about. I applaud what I’ve heard from you all tonight. It’s very difficult for everybody. It’s difficult for you. On this side, it’s difficult for me. I didn’t want to come out tonight. I wanted to have a glass of red wine and just relax. But this is our public this is our civic duty as citizens. And so this is a conversation you’re getting barraged by your community, and I understand that, and then also hear you say, we’re talking about the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is we are the leader in mass incarceration in the world. We have 95% of the people. 97% of the people we incarcerate are released to our communities. 25% of the people in Colorado have a sex offense conviction in our prisons. I’m shocked by that. It’s on the dashboard of needs I hear every day from people who are looking for housing and for help, and many of them have a sex offense conviction. Our policies like ordinances are not evidence based, and they’re driving homelessness for people, there’s so much need for Hollis trying to do a service. He used to be my employee. He was the one that taught me a lot about opening up my heart to people with a with a sex offense conviction, and since then, I’ve hired several more people with sex offense convictions, and I now run a housing program. I did a presentation before Denver City Council. I was on the Denver’s current prevention control commission for five years, and for we brought a presentation about our housing program to the city council. We brought the treatment providers and our landlords, and just talked about the program. I’d love to share that with you. It’s on tape, or I can just, we’ll do it. We created if you’d like it. But this is a much longer conversation for you, for your community, and I thank you for your time tonight.
2:34:00
Hi, my name is Greg Ching. I’m a resident of Lafayette. Well, now it starts Hi. My name is Greg Ching. I’m a resident of Lafayette, but I also own property as a landlord at 1739 shavano Street, I’m one of the landlords. I don’t have a treatment, but I have a shared home that I rent out, single room occupancy. I could have made a lot more money just doing Airbnb or something like that, but I decided that it would be better to be to participate by pulling people out of homeless shelters, prisons, jails, and providing homes. For that reason, I would say, of the dozens of men I’ve helped over the last eight years, none of them done any hands on recidivism. They’ve been technical violations, you know, ankle monitoring being a different place, or downloading something they shouldn’t have, which is a crime, you know. But the point is, it’s, I’m not trying to excuse it, because I understand the fear that people have in 2020 I live in Lafayette. And I want to correct councilor council member, Chris, there is no distance ordinance. There was something proposed in 2020 but it was defeated at that point. There is nothing like that in Lafayette right now. There’s a lot of fear. And the only thing I can say, there’s a ripple effect. Many of the people that are contacting me and I get calls every day from family members, a long lot resident saying My son needs a place to stay, my father needs a place to stay. My brother needs a place to stay. I get that all the time, and I have a huge wait list. So I’m just saying that the ripple effects that there is going to be more homelessness, and I’m concerned that when you have someone who’s stuck with doing a minimum wage job because no one will hire them because of background checks, that they have no place to stay, that they will be pushed and stressed and potentially do something they shouldn’t do. So I think the ripple effect is that if you look at the family members, it’s not just individuals in these homes, it’s really the family members who who they have a connection to Longmont. So I came to Colorado Longmont in the late 80s and for business reasons, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised. I moved this area in the mid 90s, and I’ve been really pleasantly surprised how diverse and more cosmopolitan long has gotten over the last decades, admittedly, costs have gotten much higher, but the point of it is that I’d rather live in a community that’s inclusive. I know dei is not in favor anymore, but I still want to support that, and I think this aspect of humanity is part of it. I also want to respect other people’s concerns. I don’t believe these distances and the limitation only three. I mean Longmont has five people, unrelated adults. I think it should be at five and should be consistent. Treat people fairly. That’s all I have. Thank you.
2:36:55
I do want to correct that. We used to have five until the state changed. It is that, am I correct in that? So that is why there is no limit on the number legally through the state.
2:37:14
There can be as many people as you want. Is there someone else in here that wanted come on up, please. I’m sorry. I thought there was no one waiting.
2:37:28
Hello, I’m Bob at burger from 2196 winding drive, and I just through several of these meetings. It was the first Housing Authority meeting that I attended a few weeks ago, which was pretty interesting. I have a question, though, why can the City Housing Authority do background checks and prohibit sex offenders in their housing when we don’t get that opportunity in our own homes? And also have a question about, How can zoning restrictions continue to be broken? I just I don’t understand that. I feel like they’re there for a reason, and they’re being broken and no actions yet. It’s a long time, thanks.
2:38:23
Thank you. Come on now.
2:38:34
Hi, yeah, thank you for your time. And I also want to thank everyone else who showed up here to share their voice and their experience today. My name is Aidan Allen. I work for an organization, called Bright collaborative. You may have formerly known us as lcjp. We’ve held a tradition of providing restorative justice services in this community, helping communities have difficult conversations within community, for over 30 years, and we’re grateful to have been invited to continue this tradition by Mubarak solutions during an open house this Thursday, from 3pm to 5pm at 2200 winding drive. And I just wanted to be very explicit in our role in that, because we’re not, I’m not here to advocate for any policy one way or the other. And restorative justice, we use a term called multi partiality. It’s different than neutrality, in that we want to hold the experiences of all participants who are involved in those discussions. So I Yeah, wanted to Yeah, be be clear that you know what restorative justice serves to do, hopefully in this circle on Thursday, is to provide people who show up and the residents of the facility, as well as the business owners, to have the opportunity to share their voices and be heard by each other, and also right when we have. Conversations we, you know, use that structure so that we can ensure that conflict isn’t escalated through dialog, that hopefully dialog can actually be generative and maybe even healing, though we don’t intend to. We’re not. We don’t have expectations that anything will be decided at that time. So yeah, very grateful to be here and to be able to continue having these discussions, and hopefully, you know, continuing more in the future, because restorative justice truly is part of our lifeblood here in Longmont. Thank
2:40:29
you. Thank you. Next Hi, okay, can you pull Thank you? Harold, yeah,
2:40:39
okay, yeah. Hi. My name is Julia Munster, so I’m I live in the Longmont area, and so I am a treatment provider. So I provide therapeutic services to these offenders. So I wrote a statement. So I am in support of the mobar solutions housing initiative, because this program enforces strict policies regarding substance use and incentivizes guys to attend pro social events, eliminating the isolative patterns that truly enabled their offending. My clients have been able to find connection in this house in a way that is fully supportive and beneficial to their recovery. So this isn’t just, you know, a house where guys are living together. I mean, there is so so much structure, and that’s the only reason that I’m like, okay, you know this not the only reason. But anyway, so sorry about that. Everyone’s tired. So while I understand the fear and concern of those in the community who want nothing to do with someone who is sexually offended against others. I’m here to agree with you all. I offer the idea that many of those who have committed sex crimes understand your perspective as well. My goal in sharing the statement is not to defend my clients, but to support the efforts that mo bars has initiated to provide stable housing for those who are genuinely learning how to be effective members of society. I really focus on taking a strengths based approach, and I really don’t let them get away with anything. Like, I’m straight up. I’ve had guys report me because they’re like, choose me. And I’m like, shut up. Like, you know what I mean? I mean, anyway, so my goal is to reduce the recidivism rate of the population. Truly, I want our children safe in the community. Clients learn early on that there is no way for them to easily engage in previous criminal behaviors through safety plans and polygraphs. Most of my clients show so much remorse that they can hardly move out of the shame that they carry for their actions. I want to continue to support rahas efforts in establishing a stronger community where there does not need to be fear of those who have previously offended due to the nature of how they are held consistently accountable and responsible for their actions in the past and present. So yeah, thank you all.
2:42:55
Thank you. Next,
2:43:00
hi, hi.
2:43:03
My name is Taylor. I’m a Boulder County resident. I know the clock hasn’t restarted. Yeah, so it’s been a long evening. There’s been a lot of information, a lot of emotion, and just like wanting to invite everybody that’s left to just take a deep breath together if you want, inviting us to do that and really feel and honor the activation that this brings up in all of us, right? This is an issue of safety that is very scary. And you know, in this room, in this moment, there’s not an imminent threat, though it might feel that way. And yes, safety is on the line for a lot of us, but right now, we’re not running we’re in community, in a room trying to make sense of something that’s really hard to hold. And my perspective is that this is the only way that we’re going to be able to create community safety from this place. Safety doesn’t come from running away with our imaginations, but from truly seeing and confronting what is here. As I said, my name is Taylor. I have a decade of experience researching humans as an anthropologist and studying the embodied impacts of policy on people, and I’m also a graduate student in clinical mental health counseling, and I’ve been working with adult males with sex offense charges for the last five months, I understand the fear and concern that many of us are feeling as parents, neighbors and community members. We want to keep everyone safe, especially our children, and I’m really grateful for the conversations that have been brought up about the research about what actually creates community safety and you know, research and experience have consistently shown that structured reintegration programs like mobaras, with their accountability systems, therapy requirements and community oversight, actually enhance public safety, not diminish it. This program being discussed has documented 0% Recidivism rates while the clients are in housing. And this is an accidental it’s by design. And you know, when I sit in group therapy with these clients, many of them say that this is the only social interaction that they have in like in their lives right now. And you know, isolation has been shown to increase the possibility of recidivism. So I consider this safety or a way towards safety, movement towards safety that everyone is really seeking, whether or not we like it. Humans have always been and always will be intricately interwoven together. We are social animals and conflict, tension and hurt, at least historically, in this point in time is inevitable, and everybody in this room has the capacity to hurt and also be hurt and to harm and be harmed. We are vulnerable. We are fallible. That is the nature of being alive and denying that complexity does not mean that it doesn’t exist. It behooves us to remember that the first time anyone encounters harm is never them being the perpetrator of it, and I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind or take away anyone’s agency to decide for themselves. I’m simply here as a walking prayer for healing and safety. Thank you.
2:46:21
My name is, I’m the founder of mobaris solutions. I’m the operator at the home at 2200 winding drive. And I have to say, Harold you said this would be nothing like Firestone. And you’re right. This has been nothing like Firestone, if you want to start my timer, yeah, I’m grateful that this has been nothing like Firestone. I’m grateful for the dialog. I’m grateful for the community coming out here and speaking. I’m grateful for the amazing human beings that had the courage to come up to this podium and tell you something different and tell you about their own personal experiences. And you know, I I gotta say that if this true, if this city is truly serious about reducing recidivism and finding a new pathway, a healing pathway, then let’s do the work. I’ve already been doing it. I’ve partnered with the boulder Probation Department, the Longmont parole department, and you’ve heard from different therapy providers, treatment providers, I’ve been working with them. Let’s work together. I’m not here with theory. I’m here with action. But if this conversation is really about pocket setbacks and deciding who wins and who loses, let’s be honest. Councilmember, Crist, you represent the ward that we operate out of, where our sober living home is at and naturally it makes sense that you would oppose it, because it’s mostly your constituents and you with the most on at jeopardy. And what this ordinance will do now is it will push us to your pockets and your enclaves. We would be more than happy to create more housing, because this is what your community needs, but we will be in the areas that you’re concentrating us towards, and this is going to be older neighborhoods, like you said, with less resources available, communities that also have less political influence. This isn’t just a zoning policy, it’s a socio economic decision wrapped in arbitrary language you’ve made it clear with which constituents matter most, it’s those with wealth, privilege and less diversity. Our sober living home isn’t just housing. It’s healing. Congregate living is the core of our success. It creates the environment where accountability, peer support and recovery happen, and we know from experience, five residents is the sweet spot. It’s not too late to make an amendment on how many individuals can be in a home. I strongly urge you to revise that from three to five. That number allows for personality balance, structured community, therapeutic oversight and peer recovery coaching, and that’s our formula. And as you already know it works. We have a 0% recidivism rate. Council member Chris said that everyone in the neighborhood should feel safe, and I absolutely agree. But what about those that you guys are talking about so openly and referring to them as sex offenders or as monsters or as less than community members? They’re constantly reduced to their convictions, dehumanizing them, but they are human beings, working healing and trying to rebuild their lives. Our home is a certified and federally protected program under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the individuals we serve fall in a protected class. What this ordinance does is create unconstitutional barriers to their housing recovery and ability to serve them.
2:49:39
Thank you. Someone else.
2:49:52
Melissa Erwin, again, I want to reiterate a point and be clear no one is arguing that sex offenders rehabilitate. Is a bad thing. We all would love for these folks to never hurt anyone else again. We want to know why it has to be done in the middle of a zone, one residential neighborhood in mass. These are the lifelong consequences of your actions. Get a treatment facility away from the most vulnerable. But ours has tactfully pivoted away from mentioning sex offenses and is now taking talking about sober living facilities in an effort to skirt laws. Also per car certification wasn’t finalized until March 25 meaning this house was set up in February and is illegal. Bars program is not yet three years old, so recidivism rates are still to be determined. Thank you.
2:50:43
I think Nathan is next, but that’s okay. You can go next, after, after Nathan.
2:50:53
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Nathan trash, turn 2205 winning drive, as you just heard, mubaras state the hot the number is five, but he’s got eight people living there. Like, you know, like, if five is the optimal number, why are there eight people living there? Now that’s not the best interest of his clients. So what is this really about? I think this is really about making a lot of money for a lot of people, rather than going through the process of their the homes. Absolutely, they need a place to live where they can they can congregate and have that sort of situation. But we have policies in the city for group homes and residential treatment facilities. They could have used either of those pathways, and they didn’t. They just dropped into the middle of a residential neighborhood. Residential neighborhood and are hiding behind the ACLU and what they believe they have protections from. I mean, they talk about the restorative justice. We didn’t really even hear about this restorative justice program in our community until about three days ago. I mean, this is, like, maybe not even a week’s notice, and they’re doing it in the middle of the day. It’s a press junket. It’s not actually meant to help anybody. I mean, this is what you’re seeing here is, is just ridiculous. I mean, the state, the state doesn’t even want to follow its own statute. The State in the statute that supports their facility says the primary use case is supposed to be substance abuse treatment. I can’t get an answer out of the state. I’ve sent I’ve tried to ask them, well, but it says primary in your statute. Why? Why? I mean, it’s very clear that this is their primary case is not substance abuse treatment, it’s sex offender reentry. I can’t get an answer out of them. I can send you guys the emails if you’d like to see them. You know, I tried to file a complaint last week with car about the facility. They brag about how they have no complaints. Car won’t even respond. I’ve got no response. It’s been almost a week. How could a complaint get filed and none of them get filed up followed up on. I mean, you guys, I would ask you to file a lawsuit against the state for not enforcing their own statute. I think that needs to happen. No matter which way you go, you’re going to end up in a lawsuit one way or the other. I understand. You know you want to avoid that, but it’s there’s no way around it. It’s my thoughts. Thanks.
2:53:28
No, I’m sorry this could go on forever.
2:53:38
Charlotte Iverson, Marlboro, solutions actually came into Longmont like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This city council was told by your residents in February that we noticed that slowly these five original sex offenders came into our neighborhood in Prairie Village, the Zach and grant spoke with us that evening on February 25 the first time we appeared before you, although not the first time we communicated with you that There was no certification that was verified that mubara solutions had, and by Mr. Dominguez’s own sheet that he showed up even in March, there was no certification then had been granted by Mubarak solutions. So they came in without any kind of car certification. They violated your city ordinances in terms of zoning. They have kept you guys were in the dark until we told you about it, and on top of that, they set up. Shop with a business, a commercial enterprise for profit in our neighborhood. This could happen anywhere in Longmont. This is not a Prairie Village problem. This is a city wide problem that this council needs to address. On top of that they have originally, when they came in, their website talked about sex offenders. There was absolutely nothing about sobriety housing that only I believe, was added there to be a way to circumvent the system so that they could get what Mr. MOBAs solutions actually wanted. Let’s be real clear that there are no registries for murderers, for burglars, for arsonists or any other crime, only sex offenders, and that is because our society has deemed individuals who hurt children, who rape people, whatever their sex crimes are, are a danger to everybody in our society to the extent that they believe that we need to know where they are, and we as the citizens of Longmont have the right to expect you, who we elected, to represent us and to take care of us, to protect us like you are supposed to. And as far as this open house business, it’s you very much. Thanks.
2:56:40
Once again, contact your legislators.
2:56:42
Yep, well, we’re talking to you now. I’m not a legislator, but thank you.
2:56:49
Is there anyone else? I think this is probably going to be the last one, because we’re going over and over everything that we did at first, first call.
2:56:59
I thank you for letting me come back up. I just want to address, I’d like to address two things that I’ve heard over and over with the car application process. I’m the one that filed the application. Car is a housing first agency, so when we reach out to certification, their instructions are to set up the home to get things going and to start the process. It’s a long, arduous process with car, because they’re very careful about making sure that all of the things are met within car. So when you see the certification on March 25 It was after multiple certifications that process, I repeat that they are a housing first program and instructed us to at the application to go forward with the house with the expectation that the certification will be completed. Okay? I also want to address the second fact that all eight residents in the home have an identified substance use program. A Sober Living Program is a safe place for people to live in surprise recover from any of our clients, their addictions and their behaviors and their offenses go hand in hand, and they’re treated by a therapist and everybody sort of the same thing. But I want to be clear that every one of our residents has an identified substance use program. They’re not up here talking about it, because that’s not what this meeting is about. Nor do I believe that any of them want that to be public information. So I just want to address those two things, because I’ve heard them over and over and over from different citizens, so I wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.
2:58:30
Thank you. I’m going to close final call public invited to be heard. Thank you very much everyone. And I know this is a hard subject, but the city has been working on it. We do not go as fast as you want, because we do thorough research and not just go on the assumptions that some people make. So thank you very much. And now it is time for council comments, mayor and council comments, I want to say, and I’m going to go first, but I do see people in the queue. I want to say that having the Japanese delegation here was an amazing thing. That’s a 12 and a half hour flight. Mayor Imai had was raised in Chino, Japan. He’d never been on an airplane before he he’s an amazing human being, and I am honored that they came. And one of the reasons that we went is to convince them that the youth exchange program was worth funding because they were not going to fund it, and we made an impression, and we’ve got an incredible Sister Cities thing. And I am very happy that all three of these cities have children who are curious and interested in. Other cultures, languages, and we can provide through sister cities, a very safe way for them to experience this when they’re young enough to not be I guess, have their minds changed. We want them to make their own, their own decisions about other cultures, races and people of the world. So thank you very much. Councilor Christ,
3:00:35
thank you Mayor, and I agree with you that reception was just lovely, and thank you for taking a trip to Japan and bringing that group here. I did want, I just wanted to to mention, I do have the Lafayette Colorado code of ordinance in front of me, at least a portion of it. And this ordinance was passed in 2000 and it’s ordinance 26 dash, 1411, just in case you want to look it up. Thank you.
3:01:07
Counselor Hidalgo fairing, I mean, Mayor Pro Tem, do you have your hand up? Yes,
3:01:12
I do. Okay. What I wanted to thank the rest of the Council for allowing me to join virtually. I had several coffee Jags, and I had to take an inhaler a few times. So I think you all would have kicked me out, but I am recovering from pneumonia, so I’m I’m on the mend, but, um, so I appreciate I felt like this council meeting I needed to to be a part of, you know, a couple other things that I didn’t pull these items, but you know, the work that we’re doing with with House pad, in filling that, that missing middle, attainable housing, you know, I want to commend staff, and you know, all of our efforts, it was a collective effort. And the the resolution was, is one piece. It’s that financing that allows us to to move forward with this type of housing, and I really hope, you know, to see these opportunities for people to purchase and and affordable and attainable housing in Longmont. So I mean, it took a long time. This one started when I first got on council, and we’re now finally seeing the fruits of of hard work. So, you know, I know people are getting, you know, just impatient and wanting to see more. But it takes time, and it takes time to do something thoughtful and sustainable. So, you know, I wanted to point that out, as well as other work, you know, with Kensington Park and building that together, resilient together project that that’s going to provide this really neat cooling pad for for neighborhood kids. And, you know, these are, you know, what we would, non Hoa, that would be considered, you know, neglected neighborhoods. And you know, we’re not neglecting them. We’re, you know, we’re making sure that our community does have what its needs. It just takes time. But I wanted to thank you all for those efforts, and I wasn’t going to pull items just to comment on those, so I’m saying them now.
3:03:11
Thank you. Councilor McCoy,
3:03:15
Thank you, Mayor Peck I just want to thank all the community members that came out to Cinco de Mayo. It was a wonderful presentation and a wonderful community event. I also want to thank Council members and and board members of the sister cities that came to the Callahan house for that event. I think that was also a very positive event on maybe not such a positive situation. I think we need to get have an executive session at some point to discuss, get legal advice in regards to the issues that Mr. Dresser brought up in regards to the you know what, what our options might be in the event of a lawsuit one way or another, to see, to seek advice from our legal counsel on that it does. It’s probably not enough time to deal with it next week, but I think we probably need to deal with it soon.
3:04:25
Councilor Popkin,
3:04:29
Thank you, Mayor Peck I’ll just echo the comments that council member McCoy made on the Cinco de Mayo festivities. Was a lovely event, and it’s a great day for it too. Wanted to provide a brief update to Council and the public here we had approved, we had decided to support, about a month or so ago, actually, probably, yeah, six weeks ago, the construction defects law at the state legislate, state legislature that was signed by the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and sent to the governor’s office today so the. That is moving forward, hopefully that will help increase options for home ownership in our community and streamline some of the development process. Lastly, I just want to thank everyone who came out to tonight’s discussion, particularly those who were commenting on citywide policy tonight, though I realized there were other operational and code questions at play here, I’m grateful for staff for their responsiveness and efforts between these meetings. I don’t think people always realize just how much effort and work is going on behind the scenes here too, to prepare for not only these meetings, but other discussions. And I just want to also thank the residents who have brought up first hand concerns and their experiences to us from the neighborhood. These concerns have absolutely informed our discussions and planning, as I think people saw tonight. I also want to thank those in from Denver, Westminster and others who are victims, offenders, advocates, residents or landlords, for sharing their on the ground experience and their the programs that you’re all supporting. I wish it didn’t take this type of situation for us to all learn about some of that work, because some of that is it’s all necessary, and some of it is truly inspiring to hear about. So thank you to those who came out to a different cities meeting as well to share that context. I learned something tonight, and I learned something in most of these meetings. Considered I’m still pretty new, so I appreciate that I learned something specifically about the work that you’re doing to really promote effective re entry and responsibly reduce recidivism, which I think is really the goal of everyone here, truly. I think that really is the goal, and to hear from those residents who have re entered our community as well and are putting that time and effort into being responsible and productive members of our community. So thank you for coming out we try to make evidence based decisions and data driven decisions for budget, transportation, energy, housing, redevelopment and other topics. I deeply appreciate the support of my fellow council members for this thoughtful discussion that we had tonight, and for bringing data and evidence into this public safety discussion
3:07:02
too, seeing no one else in the queue. I will ask for city manager update
3:07:09
comments, Mayor Council, actually, I do have an update today based on something that Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo faring said. So as you know, we opened the interest list on true north, I think there were about 700 to 800 people that were on the interest list. The update I got on shortly after the applicant application period opened, late Saturday or Sunday, was they had about 152 or 162 and it’s still changing. People that submitted an application for the first 55 units, and so as they work for through that process, all the applications that were qualified will start rolling into phase two, three and four. So it was really interesting to see the the amount of folks that we’re trying to find a home and that put in an application on that process. So I just wanted to give you an update on those numbers.
3:08:08
Thank you. Are you still prioritizing? Longmont? Yes, employees and whoever is is working,
3:08:16
we still have the preference points for those that are that we talked about in the project.
3:08:22
Thank you, city attorney.
3:08:26
No comments. Mayor,
3:08:27
thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Second, it’s been moved and seconded by councilor Chris, moved by councilor McLay to adjourn. All those in favor say, Aye, aye. We are adjourned. Move
Transcribed by https://otter.ai