City Council Continues Lengthy Sex Offender Ordinance Discussion
Weighs Restrictions on Sex Offender Housing, Setback Distances, and Density Limits
The Longmont City Council engaged in a marathon 4.5-hour study session on April 1, continuing a discussion that began on March 4 regarding a proposed ordinance regulating where registered sex offenders can live within city limits.
The latest session saw council members grappling with legal, ethical, and logistical challenges as they endeavored to craft a policy that addresses community concerns while remaining legally sound and reasonable.
The issue arose following a February 25 city council meeting, during which residents expressed alarm about a group home with registered sex offenders located on Winding Drive near a school and park.
At the March 4 meeting, City Manager Harold Dominguez admitted that city leadership had been unaware of the situation until residents brought it forward. Since Colorado does not have a statewide requirement, that sparked calls for action from council members, prompting the city to initiate an exploration of a formal sex offender residency ordinance.
During the April 1 study session, council members dug deeper into the legal complexities of such an ordinance. City experts cautioned that overly restrictive residency rules could be challenged in court and might unintentionally push offenders into homelessness or force them into fewer, more densely concentrated areas, potentially increasing community risk rather than reducing it.
Numerous residents again voiced their concerns during public comment, citing safety worries and frustration over the city’s response.
Mayor Joan Peck opened the discussion by introducing staff and legal advisors, including Assistant City Attorney Jeremy Terrell and Planning Development Services Director Grant Penland, to walk the council through potential policy frameworks.
“What I’ve heard from tonight is that what people want is a redacted number of people in the home allowed to live in the home, the number of feet, the setbacks, and a code change, differentiating in the [family residence] code,” Peck said.
Terrell outlined the evening’s guiding questions for the council:
Should Longmont adopt a local ordinance regulating sex offender residency?
Who would be covered by such an ordinance? (e.g., only sexually violent predators, or broader categories?)
What locations would be protected? (schools, daycares, parks, breezeways, etc.)
What setback distances should apply? (ranging from 300 to 1,000 feet)
“These individuals are required to regularly check in with law enforcement,” Terrell reminded the public. “Just keep in mind that these people are also part of the community as well. Harassment or violence will be met with criminal prosecution.”
Terrell also noted that any ordinance adopted would only apply prospectively: “Someone who’s already established a residence wouldn’t be impacted by the ordinance, it only impacts when that person moves.”
Penland demonstrated a GIS tool that would allow council members to toggle different combinations of setbacks and protected areas to assess policy impacts. He presented detailed maps showing how different setback distances—300, 500, 750, and 1,000 feet—from sensitive areas would affect housing availability.
Dominguez added that staff are also reviewing whether the property in question qualifies as a halfway house, boarding house, or group home, each of which could have different protections and implications under state law.
Peck sought to establish a council consensus on whether to formally move toward drafting an ordinance. Council members responded in quick succession, “Yes.”
With consensus reached, the discussion turned to specifics. Council members weighed options such as minimum distances from protected areas like schools, parks, and daycares, and the potential to cap how many registered sex offenders can live in a single residence.
Council member Susie Hidalgo-Fahring emphasized the importance of addressing offenses involving minors.
“It would be applicable to have sex offenders involving minors be subject to these restrictions,” Hidalgo-Fahring said, advocating for a 1,000-foot setback around schools and daycares, but suggesting a smaller buffer for parks to avoid creating concentrated “enclaves.”
“I’m also thinking about a child’s ability to walk to and from school,” Hidalgo-Fahring said. “Families shouldn’t have to live under a constant concern over their heads.”
Terrell clarified that any ordinance would only apply prospectively.
“It wouldn’t affect current residents—unless someone leaves and is replaced,” Terrell explained. “Also, probation conditions may already prohibit some offenders from being near children, independent of any local ordinance.”
Hidalgo-Fahring and Peck both raised the idea of limiting how many registered sex offenders can live at a single address.
“I do want to look at limiting the residency,” Hidalgo-Fahring said. “I want to know—does limiting the number make any impact on recidivism?”
Peck added a concern about exploitation and a reason for having a cap: “If they’re just putting people in there for money, rather than for having the care and the services and things they need because they get paid per person.”
Hidalgo-Fahring asked staff to examine how other Colorado municipalities have approached density limits, suggesting that more data could help the council decide if such limits would be effective or enforceable.
Dominguez noted that limiting the number of offenders per home would require a code amendment and further legal research.
Council member Matthew Popkin raised concerns about the legal ambiguity surrounding the group home at the heart of the issue.
“It’s unsettling to me that we don’t know what the exact type of facility is and how it relates,” Popkin said. “We have a lot of language for exactly the purpose of different functions and purposes. The fact that we don't know how to classify, perhaps different potential, what this would even be considered as is quite concerning.”
Terrell confirmed the challenge, noting that terms like “group home,” “halfway house,” “boarding house,” and “sober living facility” all have distinct meanings in land use law.
Popkin also thanked staff for developing interactive GIS mapping tools that show how varying setback distances from parks, daycares, and schools would impact potential housing zones across the city. However, he noted that the policy discussion ultimately hinges on subjective decisions.
“There isn’t research… that shows a certain distance is safe or not, that it does something or doesn’t,” Popkin said. “We are discussing the optimal level of arbitrariness.”
The council discussed setbacks ranging from 500 to 1,000 feet for various protected areas. Popkin proposed 750 feet around schools and daycares, but only 500 feet for parks, to avoid unreasonable pockets in Longmont’s already compact layout.
“We are trying to create reasonable distances, but not create unreasonable pockets in our community,” Popkin said.
Popkin also expressed frustration at the lack of state-level guidance or recent studies. He shared that he had reached out to a state official for information about shared housing, the effectiveness of residency restrictions, and best practices. His request was met with silence.
Popkin emphasized the need for more up-to-date data, noting that much of the existing research dates back to 2004.
Council member Diane Crist supported the idea to restrict the number of offenders living in a house.
“I would like to see a restriction on the number of offenders living together—especially when minors are involved,” Crist said.
Crist provided data from a recent check: Longmont has 286 registered sex offenders, which equates to roughly 95 per city ward. She raised concerns about the concentration of group housing in lower-income areas like Ward 1, which has more attainable housing.
Council member Aren Rodriguez added a cautionary note about overregulating shared housing environments.
“I’d like to add to council member Popkin’s phrase ‘optimal level of arbitrariness’ because I do feel residency restrictions, in concept, are a bit performative,” Rodriguez said. “They are not confined to their immediate neighborhoods.”
Rodriguez supported proceeding with the ordinance but advocated for nuance.
“There's a big difference between congregate living of unsupervised folks versus folks who live in a very robust program environment with strict, robust supervision. I think there are beneficial therapeutic reasons for congregate living in such circumstances where there is,” Rodriguez said. “We shouldn’t throw that all out.”
While Rodriguez is comfortable including schools and daycares in setback zones, he’s hesitant about private parks.
“Our development code created pocket parks all over the city. Including those makes setback maps very restrictive,” Rodriguez said.
Popkin emphasized the importance of distinguishing between managed rehabilitation programs and unmanaged living environments.
“We’ve heard from the public that this facility is for-profit, and I just want to make sure that’s being accurately represented,” Popkin said.
Peck echoed the need for clarification: “It would be a good thing for them to clarify that directly to residents as well.”
Roohallah Mobarez, founder of Mobarez Solutions—a sober living home currently housing registered sex offenders—stepped up to provide clarity. The facility that residents have concerns about.
“We are a for-profit, yes. But let’s be honest—if we were a nonprofit, you’d still be here. It wouldn't matter,” Mobarez told the council.
Mobarez explained that Mobarez Solutions is certified by the Colorado Association of Recovery Residences (CARR) and operates under state-recognized sober living standards, monitored by the Behavioral Health Administration.
“We’re virtually the only certified sober living home in the state of Colorado that is willing to accept people with sex offenses, no one else,” Mobarez added.
Mobarez, himself a formerly incarcerated individual, shared a personal account of his journey through the justice system and his motivation for founding Mobarez Solutions.
“At the age of 20, I chose to horribly repeat the offense, and I became a statistic myself. I spent eight years in prison, and while I was in prison, it was through treatment and therapy that allowed me to pull my head out of my [expletive],” Mobarez said. “If it were not for that therapy, and having the ability to rehabilitate myself, I would not be here standing with you today. It is because of experience that I think it qualifies me.”
He also stressed that his program includes:
Rigorous vetting of applicants
Ongoing supervision from probation and parole officers
Weekly therapeutic group sessions
Mandatory treatment programs and employment requirements
Mobarez noted that the recidivism rate for treated sex offenders is one of the lowest among all types of crime.
Council member Popkin thanked Mobarez for his transparency and requested that the “good neighbor” policy be emailed to all council members.
“We follow Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. We want to promote the healthiest version of themselves,” Mobarez said. “As an organization, we’re doing open houses. We’re engaging in conversations with our city members. We have open communication with our parole members, probation members, and local nonprofits who work with this population know who we are. We communicate very well with these folks.”
As the clock neared 11 p.m., the council voted to extend the session to finish the conversation.
The council eventually reached a majority consensus on these elements:
1,000-foot setbacks from schools and daycares
500-foot setbacks from public and private parks
Will revisit the issue of limiting the number of sex offenders per residence in a future agenda item, as most members want more research first.
The ordinance applies to two key offender categories:
Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs)
Registered sex offenders whose crimes involved minors
With a consensus now on who the ordinance should cover, city staff will begin drafting the ordinance language.
A formal first reading is expected in an upcoming meeting, followed by public hearings where residents and experts can weigh in. A first reading of any proposed ordinance could still be weeks away, with public hearings likely to precede any formal vote.
A Call to Action
The Longmont Herald wants to grow, and we need YOUR talent to help tell the stories of our incredible community.
Are you a writer, photographer, marketer, or creative looking to build your portfolio, gain experience, or simply contribute to something meaningful? Join our team of locals shaping Longmont’s next big publication!
This is a volunteer opportunity, perfect for:
Aspiring photographers who want their work showcased.
Writers passionate about local news, arts, and culture.
Marketing enthusiasts ready to connect.
Creatives who want to leave their mark on the community.
This is a volunteer opportunity perfect for anyone wanting to:
Gain hands-on experience in digital publishing.
Build a robust portfolio or resume.
Be part of a growing, hyper-local publication.
Let’s create something amazing together!
👉 Interested? Email Adam at longmontherald@gmail.com to learn more.
Be part of our story. Be part of the Longmont Herald.