Legislative Affairs - City of Longmont

Legislative Affairs

State and Federal legislation has wide-ranging impacts on the City of Longmont, its residents and businesses. The Longmont City Council closely follows a variety of legislative issues and sometimes weighs in to support or oppose pending legislation. The Colorado General Assembly meets from January through May each year. When the Assembly is in session, this page is regularly updated with information on legislation in a variety of policy areas. To learn more about how a bill becomes a law in Colorado, check out this video from the Colorado Channel.

 

The City of Longmont follows the Colorado Municipal League (CML) Policy Statement, and the National League of Cities Federal Policy Statement.

 

Click here to see the list of bills tracked during the 2025 State legislative session.

 

2025 Legislative Bills Recommended for Longmont City Council Position

April 1, 2025, City Council Meeting

 

 

HB25-1240 concerning protections for tenants who use housing subsidies. This bill strives to reduce barriers to housing for households that receive rental assistance through Housing Choice Vouchers. The original draft of the bill proposed to do several things:

  • Make all landlords regardless of the number of housing rental properties prohibited from denying a household because of being on the voucher program
  • Limit late fees to $20 for voucher holders
  • Better clarify how the required reimbursement of rent applies when a tenant has a portion of their rent paid by a voucher
  • Set a limit of $5,000 in damages and $5,000 in civil penalties that a court can be ordered to be paid to a tenant that has been discriminated against based on use of a housing subsidy

At the 3/25/25 meeting, Council tabled this item to the next week to receive more information on the applicability. The bill has been amended significantly to remove items 1) and 2) in the summary above, essentially taking out the requirement for all landlords to accept housing vouchers and remove the limit of late fees.

 

What the bill does at this point:

  • Requires the Division of Housing to compile a list of resources for landlords that may help with financial resources and advice
  • Better clarifies how the required reimbursement of rent applies when a tenant has a portion of their rent paid by a voucher
  • Sets a limit of $5,000 in damages and $5,000 in civil penalties that a court can be ordered to be paid to a tenant that has been discriminated against based on use of a housing subsidy

 

Since housing is a priority for the City Council and this bill expands protections for renters and some of the Council concerns have been removed, staff still recommends City Council supports HB25-1240.

 

Since Council did ask questions about how Housing Choice Vouches (HCV) work, Molly O’Donnell, Housing and Community Investment provided the following information:

  • Landlords that manage more than 3 units (5 units if the units are single family homes) are already prohibited from discriminating against a prospective tenant based on source of income, i.e. vouchers. This bill would disallow that for a landlord that manages any size portfolio. It should be noted that if an owner that is renting an ADU and has a prospective tenant in mind, like a family member for example, they don’t need to give that tenant up for a voucher tenant.  It is applicable to when a landlord makes an open call for prospective tenants.  They would not be able to turn away a voucher holder to instead rent to a non-voucher holder for that fact alone.
  • It is true that prior to tenancy by an HCV client, a Housing Quality Standards inspection must be completed. This inspection is required by HUD to ensure the unit meets minimum habitability standards.
  • Landlords do not need to go through an application process to participate in the HCV program, only tenants.

 

 

HB25-1295, concerning the operation of food trucks, establishing a reciprocal licensing and permitting system between local government jurisdictions for the operation of food trucks. The bill prohibits the governing body of a local government from adopting an ordinance, resolution, regulation, zoning code, or other code that:

  • Prohibits the operation of a food truck in a zone in which a food establishment is considered a permitted or conditional use;
  • Restricts the total number of days a food truck may be operated within the local government’s jurisdiction during a calendar year; or
  • Prohibits the operation of a food truck within a certain distance of another food establishment, unless the specified distance is less than 50 feet.

Longmont currently requires a 250 feet separation from any restaurant, so reduction to 50 feet would require a change to our code.  Also, mobile food vending would need to be modified to a permitted or conditionally permitted use within the City’s Residential Mixed Neighborhood and Residential Multifamily zoning districts.  These are land use decisions that are the responsibility of local government, based on our unique community, rather than a matter of statewide concern. Staff recommends City Council opposes HB25-1295. 

 

 

HB25-1300, concerning claimants’ access to medical care in workers’ compensation claims, shifting the burden of proof for a claimant’s entitlement to medical benefits that are recommended by an authorized treating physician, requiring an employer or the employer’s insurer to use the division of workers’ compensation’s utilization standards, and changing the mechanism by which a claimant can choose a treating physician. This bill raises several concerns:

  • Concern that injured workers will get lost in a mandated system where they would need to select their treating physician from a list of physicians on the Division of Workers Compensation (DOWC) website (that is currently 117 pages long).
  • Concern that complicated administration will lead to significant extra work for Risk Management. As a simple example of how this bill would affect the management of claims, let’s say an employer has 50 open claims. With the current bill wording, the claims management personnel would potentially be contacting 50 different physicians for return-to-work status forms. Claims adjusters will also be burdened with tracking these forms, which potentially will cause delay in lost time payments to injured workers if they are not aware an injured working was taken off work by a provider.
  • Concern that there are no boundaries listed in the drafted bill for the geographical area of physicians. An injured worker may select a physician who is not located near the employer, causing more travel time and time away from work for the employee.

With the current process, claims adjusters have a copy of the employers designated provider list and know which physicians to contact. This has the potential to be costly for employers and confusing for employees and staff recommends City Council opposes HB25-1300.

 

Send comments about specific legislation to City of Longmont staff:

 

Do Your Own Research

 

search