I am subscribed to Jake Marsing's newsletter (something I've found to be a very useful resource for keeping tabs on what's coming up on the council docket even when Jake's specific opinions don't align with mine, so props to Councilmember Marsing for running it — I'd love to see a more generalized version produced officially by the City, in the future...). From it, I wanted to flag for other interested parties that tomorrow, 10/27, city council will be discussing the potential to allow metro district exceptions for developers and that public comment to be heard is useful if you have strong opinions (as I do) about the direction Council takes on this issue moving forward. I will paste the relevant newsletter segment below, if anyone else would like to read Jake's thoughts about it, but I would love to see folks turn up for comment if you can make time in your evening.
Metro Districts: Keeping them Out of Longmont 🏠:
I've spent a lot of this newsletter talking about the importance of creating more opportunities for people to own homes in Longmont. My core belief is that this community must remain accessible to working families and making sure we don't become a city where the only people who can afford to live here are the ones who already own property.
So you can probably imagine my reaction when I opened Tuesday's Council packet and saw that staff is asking us to consider expanding Longmont's municipal code to allow metropolitan districts for predominantly residential developments.
I am absolutely opposed. And frankly, I'm pretty shocked that we're having to revisit this.
If you're unfamiliar with metro districts, here's the basic idea: A developer needs to build infrastructure for a new development: roads, drainage systems, utilities, and other public improvements. Rather than paying for all of those improvements through the development's normal financing, a metropolitan district can issue debt to finance them.
Who pays that debt back? The people who buy homes in the development, through additional property taxes that can continue for decades. In fact, most residential metro districts never sunset, even after the developer has paid off their infrastructure.
Essentially, residential metro districts allow developers to pass the cost they should be paying for onto the home and business owners who wind up living and working inside the development through a never ending tax that many folks who buy in these districts don’t actually know about until they’ve already purchased property.
If we are serious about making homes affordable, allowing developers to pass the buck to homeowners isn’t the way to do it.
Under Longmont's existing rules, a metro district can impose up to 50 mills in additional property taxes, with district debt required to be repaid within 40 years. The exact tax obligation depends on the district, but the potential burden on homeowners is significant.
And here's why I'm especially fired up about this: Longmont already fought this battle. In February 2019, a previous Council voted 4–3 to change our municipal code and allow developers to apply for residential metro districts. The decision generated months of controversy.
Our community owes former councilmember Councilmember Polly Christensen and former Mayor Joan Peck a debt on this issue. They were especially outspoken about the consequences for homeowners, and fought to end metro districts in Longmont. They proved just how these districts benefit developers and leave residents behind, forcing them to hold the cards for for the debt incurred.
Councilmember Christensen put it pretty plainly at the time, saying a metro district was "not a tool that is useful except for the developers." I agree.
Thanks to their efforts, council voted to end Metro districts in Longmont following the 2019 election. And now, just six years later, staff is bringing forward the possibility to reopen the door.
Why?
The study session packet points to two potential developments. The first is the Sugar Factory redevelopment area, which presents enormous challenges involving environmental remediation and infrastructure. The second is Beauprez Farms, near Highway 66, where the developers have submitted a request arguing that the project isn't financially feasible without metropolitan district financing. They've identified major drainage, road, utility, and other improvements they say would benefit both their development and the surrounding area.
I don't dispute that these projects have infrastructure challenges. I don't dispute that cleaning up and redeveloping the Sugar Factory could be extraordinarily expensive. But I am not willing to use the promise of redeveloping the Sugar Factory as a reason to reopen residential metro districts across Longmont. The Sugar Factory has been a difficult redevelopment site for decades. I'd love to see it transformed into something our community can be proud of.
But a shiny redevelopment opportunity is not a good enough reason to abandon a policy that was put in place to protect future homeowners.
And when it comes to Beauprez Farms, I have an even more fundamental concern. The developers say their project doesn't pencil out without metro district financing.
Well, sometimes a development doesn't pencil out.That doesn't automatically mean Longmont should change its laws to make it work.
Developers need to be responsible for the costs of developing their properties. Passing those costs along to future residents through decades of additional property taxes is not responsible development policy. And I don't believe it's progressive housing policy, either.
Of course, there are legitimate questions about regional infrastructure. If a drainage improvement serves an entire part of the community, we should examine who benefits and how those costs should be shared. But that is a different conversation from allowing residential developers to create new taxing districts to finance their projects.
Here's the part that particularly concerns me: Tuesday's discussion is not about approving one carefully constructed financing plan for the Sugar Factory. There isn't even a complete Sugar Factory financing proposal before Council. Staff is asking whether Council would consider changing the municipal code to allow districts for projects with extraordinary infrastructure or remediation needs.
That's a much bigger question. Once you create an exception in the code, you've established a precedent. Other developers can seek to use the same rules. And suddenly a policy that was supposed to address one unusually difficult project becomes another financing option for residential development across the city.
I don't want that for Longmont.
I'm working hard to make it possible for more working families to own homes in this community. I can't square that effort with reopening a financing mechanism that can saddle homeowners with significant additional property taxes.
My position is simple: I will not support expanding Longmont's code to allow metropolitan districts for predominantly residential development. Period. We already had this fight. We already heard the arguments. We already made the decision to protect residents from this approach to financing residential growth. I see no reason to reverse that progress now.
Council will discuss the issue at our Tuesday, October 27 study session at 7 p.m., in Council Chambers at 350 Kimbark Street.
No metro district will be approved Tuesday. Staff is seeking direction on whether to pursue a broader change to our rules.
I'll be there, and I'll be making my position unmistakably clear. If you want to come out and speak, I’d invite you to come to Public Invited to be Heard.
