HomeMy WebLinkAbout931378.tiff BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
IN RE : SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN, 1ST FILING, FORT JUNCTION PUD - THE
VILLA AT GREELEY, INC. , C/O JOHN T. COPPOM.
PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in interest, the
above-entitled matter came for public hearing before the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, December 8,
1993, at 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, before Shelly
Miller, Deputy Clerk to the Board and Notary Public within and
for the State of Colorado, and TRANSCRIBED by Linda
Bartholomew, Rainbow' s End Typing Service.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached transcript is a
complete and accurate account of the above-mentioned public
hearing.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Carol A. Harding
\r� Deputy Clerk to the Board
931378
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING - December 8, 1993
IN RE : SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN, 1ST FILING, FORT JUNCTION PUD - THE
VILLA AT GREELEY, INC. , C/O JOHN T. COPPOM.
PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in interest, the
above-entitled matter came for public hearing before the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, December 8 ,
1993, at 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado.
APPEARANCES:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Constance Harbert, Chairman
W.H. (Bill) Webster, Pro-Tem
Dale Hall, Commissioner
Barbara Kirkmeyer, Commissioner
George Baxter, Commissioner
WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
Lee D. Morrison, Esquire
Bruce Barker, Esquire
APPLICANTS:
John Coppom
Michael Brand
Harry Asmus
Arthur P. Roy, Esquire
Loren Bley, Architect
Vern Nelson, Engineer
Tom Waters, Esquire (Colorado Department of Corrections)
ALSO PRESENT:
Keith Schuett, Current Planner
Shelly Miller, Acting Clerk to the Board
2
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Good morning. I would like to
3 call to order the Board of Commissioners . May I have role
4 call please?
5 CLERK: George Baxter
6 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Here .
7 CLERK: Dale Hall .
8 COMMISSIONER HALL: Here
9 CLERK: Barbara Kirkmeyer.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Here.
11 CLERK: Bill Webster.
12 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: Here.
13 CLERK: Connie Harbert
14 COMMISSIONER HARBERT: Here. We are here for a
15 hearing. I will let our legal counsel make record.
16 MR. MORRISON: Docket Number 93-82 is the
17 application of the Villa at Greeley, Incorporated for a Site
18 Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Plan
19 (PUD) , 1st Filing, Fort Junction PUD, part of the Southwest
20 Quarter of Section 2, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the
21 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. Notice was published October
22 28, 1993 in The Windsor Beacon.
23 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Before we have staff comments, we
24 have a very large crowd here today, and we will need to
25 conduct this hearing in a very orderly way. I think that all
3
1 of you were at least given the opportunity to receive this
2 brochure. If not, there are extras on the post right here in
3 the room. This is our policy on procedures for all hearings
4 conducted by the Board of County Commissioners . There are
5 guidelines listed in here for speaking and I am going to read
6 those at this time: "The Chairman will review the guidelines
7 for speaking before testimony is taken on any application.
8 All testimony is to be given at the microphone. When you
9 first speak, please state your full name and complete address .
10 If you wish to speak again you must request permission from
11 the Chairman. All testimony shall be relevant and should not
12 be repetitious . Clapping, booing and audible conversations
13 from the audience are not appropriate. Finally, if you have
14 any objections to any testimony, you must request permission
15 to re-address the Board" . And the order of testimony will be
16 done in this matter. Thank you.
17 Testimony on Land Use Applications will be received
18 in the following order. The Planning staff will present the
19 recommendation of the Weld County Planning Commission. The
20 Applicant will make a presentation in support of the
21 application. Citizens may speak in the following order: 1)
22 those in support of the application; 2 ) those opposed to the
23 application; and then applicant ' s rebuttal to testimony.
24 After the completion of testimony by the county staff,
25 applicant and citizens, the Chairman may close the public
4
1 hearing and open the proceedings to discuss the questions by
2 the Board. At the discretion of the Chairman, additional
3 testimony may be taken, must not be repetitious and should
4 serve to clarify points raised in the earlier testimony.
5 Although a case may be continued to a subsequent meeting for
6 further action, the Board of County Commissioners normally
7 makes a decision on the application the same day as the public
8 hearing.
9 We also have a list of criteria which the
10 Commissioners will be basing their decision on. Those are
11 available to you, I think, Bruce Barker, they are on a green
12 sheet. Mine ' s white, but I believe yours is green.
13 MR. BARKER: I ' ll need to make some additional
14 copies . Who else would like to have one of these who has not
15 gotten one? I ' ll make the additional copies .
16 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Thank you. There will be
17 additional copies made here for those of you that would like
18 to have one.
19 There are six items of criteria that I will read
20 right now. "1 ) That the proposal is consistent with the Weld
21 County Comprehensive Plan; 2 ) that the Planned Unit
22 Development Plan conforms to the PUD district in which it is
23 proposed to be located; 3 ) that the uses, buildings , and
24 structures which would be permitted shall be compatible with
25 the existing or future development of the surrounding area as
5
1 permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
2 development as projected by the Comprehensive Plan or Master
3 Plans of affected municipalities; 4 ) that there has been
4 conformance with the performance standards outlined in Section
5 35 . 3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance; 5) that there will
6 be compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, Section
7 50, Overlay Districts if the proposal is located within any
8 overlay district or identified by maps officially adopted by
9 Weld County; 6 ) that there has been compliance with the
10 submittal requirements of the Planned Unit Development Plan
11 and that the Planned Unit Development Plat and the supporting
12 documents satisfy the legitimate concerns of the Board. "
13 We are not here today to decide whether the State of
14 Colorado should or should not have pre-parole prisons or
15 facilities . That is not the question here today. So, please
16 do not address that as a criteria because it is not something
17 that we are here to decide. Staff, would you make record for
18 us please?
19 MR. SCHUETT: Keith Schuett, Department of Planning
20 Services .
21 The Department of Planning Services staff requests
22 that the Planning Commission Resolution be entered into the
23 record as written. The motion for approval was denied with a
24 vote of one in favor and six against. I have talked to the
25 applicant and an attorney representing the majority of the
6
1 opposition to the case, and they both have agreed that that
2 would be acceptable.
3 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Thank you.
4 Are there any questions for the staff? Would the
5 applicant or the representative come forward and state your
6 purpose?
7 MR. COPPOM: My name is John Coppom. I am the
8 principal in The Villa at Greeley, Inc . I would be commonly
9 known as the Chief Operating Officer of the company. My
10 business address is 1750 6th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631 .
11 I would like to first of all thank the County
12 Commissioners for this opportunity to present the proposal for
13 a pre-parole release center to be developed at this site.
14 Although you each are publicly elected officials, I know that
15 you also are personally dedicated to your elected office and
16 I know how much time you are going to take today to listen to
17 this presentation and the opponents and how much anxiety and
18 weighing the facts you ' ll do. But in the end, I hope you will
19 know the facts . I thank you for taking that time today, and
20 the patience to go through this major project.
21 On my part, we do have a number of representatives
22 and we have furnished each of you with an outline called
23 Presentation Outline, and I would encourage you to follow
24 that, if you find that. Without the red parts it looks
25 similar to this . That will tell you at any point who is
7
1 speaking and where we are in our presentation.
2 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Go ahead John. I have it
3 someplace. I saw it the other day.
4 MR. COPPOM: In that outline, I would like to at
5 least make note of a couple of things . It points out that I
6 am the first speaker. Under Roman Numeral IV on the second
7 page, it points out that Ed Kahn, an adjacent land owner to
8 our site, will speak, and he is an attorney in Denver and he
9 is unable to be here today. We do have a letter from him
10 supporting the project and saying that he feels his land
11 values will increase. He owns the south adjacent land, but he
12 will not be here today.
13 Under number 8, I have spoken with the County
14 Attorney and Ann Garrison, who is an economist at the
15 University of Northern Colorado and who was commissioned by
16 EDAP to do a study on this project, is tied up until three
17 o ' clock this afternoon and I would ask the indulgence of the
18 County Commissioners to allow her to speak in our behalf when
19 she appears right around 3 : 00 . Those are the only two changes
20 that I see.
21 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Thank you.
22 MR. COPPOM: On my part, I 'd like to give an
23 introduction to the proposal by answering three questions :
24 What is a pre-parole release center; where do we wish to
25 locate the pre-parole release center; and why do we wish to
8
1 locate it at that site?
2 In 1990 there was an enabling legislation that
3 commissioned the establishment of a pre-parole release center.
4 That legislation was co-sponsored by two of our own local
5 legislators, Representative Bill Jerke and Senator Tom Norton.
6 But it also adds 18 total representatives co-sponsoring it and
7 15 senators . It was a comprehensive criminal justice bill
8 that not only established the pre-parole release center, but
9 it did a number of other things that were very punitive in
10 terms of looking at handling offenders . For example, it added
11 several prisons to the state prison system. It also created
12 the diagnostic center which is now located on Smith Road in
13 Denver. It also created the Criminal Justice Commission which
14 was, of course, commissioned to address the issues of state-
15 wide problems in the adult criminal justice system. But
16 indeed, it did create and establish the pre-parole release
17 center. Essentially what that legislation said was that we
18 have to stop doing the job that we ' re doing which was a poor
19 job, and do a job better in handling offenders . The present
20 job was handing an offender, as he was being released, a
21 hundred dollars, a suit of clothes, a bus ticket, and saying
22 "Go find your parole agent and God speed. " So the legislation
23 said we have to do a better job and in the legislation there
24 is mandated specific types of programming intended to assist
25 offenders in their transition back to the community. In your
9
1 packet, you will find a complete comprehensive list of the
2 program parts, and although I wont ' go through that now, and
3 perhaps my co-hort, Michael Brand may cover that in more
4 detail . Let me tell you that the program does address
5 offender needs in employment, money management, housing,
6 education, domestic violence, chemical dependency, working
7 with active agencies within their own community, and I think
8 a very important thing that many people forget, and something
9 that' s really important about that proposal is that the pre-
10 parole release center will also place heavy emphasis on the
11 law enforcement obligations of these offenders as they are
12 being released. Police enjoy that because they want to know
13 where the offenders are and who ' s out in the community.
14 The pre-parole release center was funded in the Long
15 Bill for 300 beds, average daily population. Our facility has
16 386 beds because in the RFP that was issued, a women' s coded
17 program was mandated. And we know from all of our projections
18 that that part of the program will probably never be full and
19 we really never know how many women will be in the program.
20 It' s a see-saw situation where there will be low numbers, high
21 numbers, back and forth. The women have to be 100% separated
22 from all the men in the facility. So there we have a unit
23 that we don' t know whether it will be full or not. We can
24 also have, as you ' ll learn later on, a special management area
25 of the facility for special types of management problems that
10
1 will be explained later on. But because of that, and trying
2 to maintain a 300 average daily population, we have to have
3 more beds available to us than just the 300 that were funded.
4 But that is what is funded, 300 beds .
5 It is also true that parolees who technically
6 violate their parole, who typically are placed in the Weld
7 County Jail at the present time, would be placed in our
8 facility rather than in the Weld County Jail . I want to
9 emphasize it is not parolees who commit new offenses . They
10 must be incarcerated in a maximum secure county jail . But
11 those that are, and the vast majority of the parolees that are
12 revoked are revoked on technical violations . It could be if
13 they meet the minimum risk criteria, be placed in our facility
14 rather than in the county jail .
15 In the RFP there is a very strong statement that
16 says that inmates, and I quote, "Inmates must have a custody
17 level classification no higher than minimum restricted. " In
18 the, probably the most asked question by the public is , "Who
19 will be in this facility?" And I would like to answer that
20 question for you right now. Every offender sentenced to the
21 Colorado Department of Corrections is first admitted to the
22 Diagnostic Unit where a comprehensive evaluation is completed.
23 And each offender' s security level is determined. The
24 Department of Corrections has five security levels . Five is
25 maximum security or a maximum security level for an offender.
11
1 Level four is closed facility, but is still a serious
2 offender. Level three is a medium-secure facility, or a
3 medium-secure classification. A level two facility or
4 classification is termed a minimum restricted classification.
5 it means essentially that there is no concern in terms of
6 whether or not the offender is a management problem or an
7 escape risk. The proposed pre-release center is a level two
8 facility which will serve only those offenders classified
9 minimum restricted or below. The first classification would
10 be the least serious classification and that would be the
11 offenders or the inmates going into community corrections .
12 The pre-release center will serve only those violent
13 offenders who have proven themselves to be neither a
14 management problem nor an escape risk through a rigorous
15 community safety conscious classification procedure. Most
16 significantly, the classification system insures that it takes
17 longer and makes it less likely for a violent offender to work
18 their way through the system in order to become eligible for
19 a level two facility.
20 There ' s been much conversation, pointed out that this is
21 probably the most asked question: "Who will be in the
22 facility?" And there has been a lot of words that the
23 murderers, robbers, rapists will go into the facility and
24 having worked in the criminal justice system for twenty-some
25 years now, I have an impression that the public believes that
12
1 all offenders are murderers, robbers and rapists . And
2 according to the data that ' s most recently available to us,
3 which is December of 1992 , this is the classification existing
4 on 9 ,062 offenders in the state corrections program. And I
5 point out to you that maximum enclosed are 21% of the
6 population, medium secure is 40 . 9%, and restricted minimum,
7 which is the classification of those coming into our program,
8 is 15 . 9% . The minimum is 22 . 2% . So at any given point, there
9 could only be about 72% of the offenders in the state
10 correctional system would not qualify for our program and
11 could not be released or placed in our facility at that time
12 of classification. So only about 38% would even qualify, but
13 about 15% of the population specifically qualifies as minimum
14 restricted.
15 I 'd also like to point out at the bottom of this
16 chart, because I think it' s important to understand, who is
17 out on parole. Are they indeed all murderers and robbers and
18 rapists? And this is a type of offense that we had on
19 December 31, 1992, for parolees . Notice that 3 . 2 were
20 released on parole for homicide and sex crimes constituted
21 1 .4% of the parolees . I don' t belittle, and none of us
22 belittle the seriousness of crime. I don' t even belittle a
23 theft. It occurs to me I can become infuriated at an
24 offender. So no one is belittling that. But in this
25 situation, we really want to know who is going to go into this
13
1 facility, who ' s going to be serviced by it, how dangerous is
2 the facility. And these are facts about the population that
3 is available that would go into this facility and the types of
4 crimes that they would commit. The vast majority of the
5 people in our facility would be then convicted of drug crimes,
6 burglary and theft . And theft constitutes theft of different
7 types, constitutes the largest single type of crime in the
8 system.
9 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: What are the others for thefts?
10 MR. COPPOM: It could be everything from in court
11 crimes such as an attempted type of crime or it could be non-
12 support, I guess, if a felony is non-support of your children,
13 it could be any number of other things that occur.
14 There are several other relevant facts about the
15 offender population that I would like to point out. The
16 offenders in our pre-parolee center will be in class, as will
17 be spelled out a little bit later, 6 hours a day, five days a
18 week. That ' s mandated in the RFP. They' ll be in there
19 working every single day. It ' s a very heavily programmed type
20 of correctional facility. The offenders are transported into
21 the facility in a locked, secure vehicle and when they leave
22 the facility they are again transported out of the area in a
23 secure vehicle. None are released in the Del Camino area.
24 The inmates are only released in their own community. The
25 people coming into this facility will be within an average of
14
1 90 days from being paroled. They' re coming out, guys, they' re
2 coming out whether you like it or I like it, they've finished
3 their sentence, they're going to walk the streets and we
4 either will do something with them before they' re released or
5 we will not . This facility will do something with them.
6 It is also true that, according to the legislation,
7 that a person could spend a maximum of 180 days in our
8 facility, but that statement is very strongly put in the
9 negative . No person shall spend more than 180 days in the
10 facility. But we know that the average will be about 90 days .
11 There are no offenders in this program who would be outside
12 the building for any purpose. We do not have trustees out
13 tending the yard or setting up chairs or whatever. This is a
14 facility that is entirely self-enclosed and all medical
15 services , dental services, and all of the work that takes
16 place is done inside the building. As you can see, it looks
17 very much like a school building, even though it is a minimum
18 secure but locked facility.
19 I told you in general what the facility is . I would
20 like to now answer the question where we would like to site
21 it. I 'd like to start from the broadest geographic
22 perspective and come down to the narrowest or most localized
23 area.
24 On the overhead, we show the Weld County Urban
25 Growth Boundary Map displaying the areas of potential growth
15
1 for the various city areas within Weld County. Where we are
2 proposing to place the facility is outside of all of the
3 growth areas, barely outside of the Firestone, Frederick and
4 Dacono Tri-City area, .and I ' ll point it out now. We chose
5 this site partially because it is outside of the potential
6 growth area of the towns . Coming in closer to the site
7 itself, we can see the I-25 corridor running north and south
8 and what we are going to look at now is the Mixed Use
9 Development area of Del Camino. And our site would be located
10 within that MUD right here. Coming in closer with another
11 transparency, let me pick up the microphone now.
12 The Villa has an option to purchase 54 acres which
13 is located on the frontage road in the Mixed Unit Development
14 of Del Camino extending from Road 24 to a half mile north to
15 24-1/2 . Our proposed site is the 22 acres that is northmost
16 on that property. It is surrounded, if I might, on the south
17 by land that is owned by Ed Kahn, who is an attorney in Denver
18 and who has written you a letter saying he supports this
19 proposal and he believes that his land value will increase.
20 He is an adjacent land owner. The land to the east, this land
21 here, is agriculturally zoned and is owned by the St. Vrain
22 Sand Company, who has an official neutral position on this
23 proposal . Further east from that is the large feedlot across
24 Road 9-3/4 . To the north this property is owned by Weld
25 County Government. It has use for long-term sand and gravel
16
1 operations and part of it to the east is being mined at the
2 present time. If we go down Road 24-1/2 to 9-3/4 we have gone
3 more than a half a mile past the site. If we go north, there
4 are approximately four homes on the north side of the road
5 right here . And if we go straight down that road, 24-3/4 to
6 where it T' s off, there is a home at the end of that and the
7 owners of that home have sent you two letters supporting the
8 project. I would point out as well that the northern part of
9 this area here, above the property, is in a flood plane.
10 If we go across the interstate, and I would point
11 out that the interstate is a significant barrier to any sort
12 of building site, we have the Barbour Ponds which are
13 diagonally north. And you have two letters from Joe Murrier
14 who is a northern director for the parks services . The first
15 letter takes issue with a number of items about our proposal .
16 The second letter says after meeting with us and going through
17 all of his concerns, he no longer has an objection to that
18 facility. If we come down directly east across the highway,
19 we have an agriculturally zoned area and then, of course, the
20 Del Camino industrial site which is zoned primarily C-3 .
21 Now, the opponents would have you believe that
22 everybody in this area is opposed to this proposal . But what
23 we would like to point out to you is that every person, or
24 every property adjacent to ours, none of those persons have
25 objected to this proposed pre-parole release center being
17
1 built on that site.
2 In regard to the Del Camino business people, there
3 will be somebody from that area to speak to you shortly as
4 part of our presentation that will address those people and
5 whether or not they have concerns or would support this .
6 So that is where we would like to site it . I 'd like
7 to answer now the question why we would like to site it at Del
8 Camino . The first thing is that the three owners of The
9 Villa, one of the owners has had businesses in Weld County for
10 38 years . I 've been a resident for 23-24 years and the third
11 owner resides in Weld County out in rural Weld County. But
12 we' re committed to Weld County. We live here . Our children
13 go to the schools here. We 'd like to keep our business around
14 this area. It is true that some other towns would like to
15 have this site. And I 've had people raise their eyebrows over
16 that . But one of those is Canon City. Canon City knows what
17 a good deal it is , but we don't want to go to Canon City. If
18 we have to run a business at that great a distance, the
19 quality of running that business is greatly challenged. We
20 want to stay on top of the type of businesses that we run and
21 that ' s why we want to stay in Weld County. Secondly, we
22 believe that the site that we 've just explained to you is
23 compatible with the adjacent land uses . It ' s an ideal site.
24 It ' s located in an area that is really innocuous to the
25 surrounding areas . It has infrastructure. That ' s very
18
1 important. Some people said go build it out in the boondocks
2 and we 've had two towns in eastern Colorado contact us . But
3 we 'd like to, you know, we have to run the infrastructure for
4 miles out in those areas . Big problems . But the
5 infrastructure is right there because the sewer, for example,
6 runs right across that property and the water is just on Road
7 24 . The accessibility for transportation, coming in and out
8 of Denver. It ' s a straight shot. As you perhaps know, the
9 State Highway Department is going to re-do that entire
10 intersection. It ' s going to become a very well-built
11 intersection and it just has great transportation
12 possibilities in and out of the Denver metro area as well as
13 in and out of the Weld County area.
14 I can' t emphasize the next point enough to
15 everybody. There have been prisons built in Colorado out in
16 the boondocks . Maybe I shouldn't use that term. But way out
17 in great distances . How do you bring in a quality staff? How
18 do you bring in a staff that ' s really of the mind that they
19 can work with prisoners and offenders? That' s a very big
20 issue in terms of quality management of these types of
21 facilities . And I ' ll let your imagination run. What type of
22 employment possibilities do we have in that Del Camino site?
23 We can pull from Weld County and Greeley. We can pull from
24 Larimer County. We can pull from Thornton and Northglenn,
25 from Longmont, as far away as Boulder. We will have quality
19
1 employees at that facility and any type of program that you
2 run, it ' s the employees that are going to make or break it and
3 we ' re excited by that potential . That ' s why it' s a good site.
4 It ' s also in a Mixed Use Development area and Michael Brand
5 will deal more in depth with the technical issues of that.
6 But it is in an ideally zoned area. It does create economic
7 development which is exciting to us, back into our own
8 hometown, 110 professional jobs, a tax-paying business, and a
9 business that will pay property tax. So, we ' re excited by
10 that and by that site and by the program and by the prospect
11 of placing it at that site.
12 With that, I 'd like to now turn it over to our
13 architect, Loren Bley, and let him take you through the
14 architectural site plan, please. Thank you.
15 MR. BLEY: Members of the Board, I 'm Loren Bley,
16 Bley Associates Architects . Our office is located in Greeley
17 at 2020 Clubhouse Drive.
18 We 've worked with ten Colorado counties in the last
19 seven years on jail and judicial projects and more recently
20 we ' ve completed work in this facility which is now nearing
21 construction completion, that I 'm sure you ' re aware of . Can
22 everyone hear me okay? Am I off or on, maybe? I ' ll just
23 speak louder then, as loud as I can.
24 The purpose of the meeting today, as I see it, is to
25 complete the final approval of the PUD application as approved
20
1 by the Planning staff as they reviewed it two months ago. The
2 final plan, as submitted, is in compliance with the zoning
3 application requirements in Section 28 . 9, Section 28 . 11 . 1 and
4 Section 28 . 13 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The
5 submittal document is essentially this piece of information.
6 It is the thickness of a Denver phone directory and yet that
7 is what 28 . 9 covers . It covers all the technical
8 ramifications that were reviewed and approved by your Planning
9 staff . You know, a lot of PUD' s bog down because of the
10 utility infrastructure and this was one of the pluses of this
11 particular project on the submittal . The utility
12 infrastructure, for the most part, has been there for several
13 years, 8-10 years, and our engineer will address that later.
14 Five utility districts approved the plan as submitted, as far
15 as saying, "We can service the major utilities that are
16 required of this facility. " The fire protection district,
17 Mountain View Fire Protection District, also was positive in
18 saying, "We can service emergency response as related to this
19 facility. " The State Department of Transportation as the
20 Planning staff that is very aware, and over the past couple
21 years or even four years, they' re in a re-alignment situation
22 on the frontage road at the northeast quadrant of this site.
23 They, too, have said, "We can service what needs to be done
24 here. " The County Utility Advisory Board approved the utility
25 plan with no exceptions on the 23rd of September this year.
21
1 There are no adverse environmental impacts related to the
2 proposed pre-release center. All referral responses that went
3 to state agencies have confirmed that there are no water,
4 soil, or air issues of conflict related to the application.
5 The PRC or the pre-release center is not in a designated flood
6 plane district, as John looked at that, to the north of the
7 site on the site plan, across Weld County Road 24-1/2 . It is
8 not in an overlay district or a wilderness protection area.
9 What I 'd like to do is give you a visual look at the
10 facility and primarily look at the site plan and also the
11 building plan and then if you have some technical questions
12 related to that, we can lead into that. The, if you look on
13 the overhead screen, the facility itself is, the foot print of
14 the facility is 158 feet by 420 feet, which represents two-
15 level 123,000 gross square feet on the 22-acre site that ' s a
16 part of the PUD application. There are two access entry
17 drives designed along the I-25 frontage corridor, here. The
18 first entry is at the southwest and that particular entry will
19 service the staff and vehicular service traffic on site. The
20 secondary entrance, which is at the northwest corner of the
21 site, will service primarily administration staff and
22 visitation. Weld County Road 24-1/2 to the north is left in
23 its present state and is not in consideration for an access
24 point at this time. It is unimproved. There is also a 20-
25 foot unpaved road indicated by the dashed line at the
22
1 perimeter of the facility. And that particular lane is a fire
2 access lane with security access gates . All the on-site
3 paving that you see on the west end of the facility, all those
4 roads are 40-feet wide. There ' s a paved area for 144 parking
5 stalls; 66 are designated for staff use, 78 are designated for
6 administration, staff, visitation. The county reviewed the
7 covered-uncovered proportion as far as the overall
8 development. Forty-four percent of the site is covered;
9 that ' s hard surface covering, paving, roofing, what have you.
10 Fifty-six percent uncovered open space, and that takes into
11 account the percentages based on the initial ten-acre
12 development of the project . There is a landscaped pedestrian
13 entry court that ' s between the two parking lots as you see
14 illustrated on the rendering. There is an outdoor exercise
15 court which is contiguous to the east side of the building.
16 That is 120 feet by 420 feet and one of the important security
17 features on the outdoor court, you can see the two lines
18 illustrated here. It' s a double security fence. The outer
19 fence, the overall height is 14 feet; the inner fence is 8
20 feet in height. There will be either mercury vapor or high
21 pressure sodium lighting and camera surveillance on the
22 perimeter of the site . That is a DOC requirement that The
23 Villa will also look at implementing that.
24 The landscape is approved by the Planning staff .
25 Landscaping is proposed for the parkway space. That ' s what
23
1 you see here from the parking lot to the frontage road. That
2 essentially will be rolled earth berming with deciduous trees,
3 excuse me, with pine trees most likely to provide a wind
4 break. There will be earth berming on, this would be the
5 north end and the south end of the building project and also
6 trees . This will screen the outdoor exercise secured area, in
7 conjunction with additional trees that will probably be used
8 on the perimeter fencing. Sod and underground sprinkler
9 system are proposed for the west end of the facility. I think
10 that ' s well illustrated also on the rendering. And on the
11 balance of the property, on the balance of the acreage that
12 needs to be developed, there will be a seeded fairway of
13 crested wheat with a surface and underground sprinkler system
14 proposed for the overall perimeter. Of course, the crop
15 planting line that you see here, that will continue in crop
16 planting at this time. There is no development plans for the
17 outlot to the east.
18 What I 'd like to do now is walk you through the
19 building plan. One point I 'd like to make -- this
20 rehabilitation correctional facility is unique in design due
21 to the rehabilitation program elements . The design program
22 allows for teaching classrooms, as you can see within the
23 interior pods here. Teaching classrooms and counseling
24 offices that share the day room use spaces and still maintain
25 the direct supervision management function. This direct
24
1 management function is something that is not only used by The
2 Villa, it ' s also used in our county jail facilities
3 extensively with a number of counties . Another thing that ' s
4 unique about this type of facility, John mentioned the hours
5 of instruction in the classroom, but there are expanded
6 facilities for recreation. On the interior there is a full-
7 sized gym. We talked about the outdoor exercise. Also
8 included in the central core are the medical, there' s a
9 medical treatment unit, dental suite. There' s also a
10 reference library and then there ' s a central commissary where
11 the inmates can exchange or get goods that they need right in
12 house there. The balance of the building, at least on the
13 main floor of course, is this would be the kitchen food prep
14 area, utility services and what have you. And there is, and
15 there ' s been questions about this that come up with security
16 and safety, you ' ll notice adjacent to the sally port there is
17 an infirmary hold for people that for medical reasons need to
18 be isolated from the balance of the pods . There are eight
19 direct supervision dorm pods, which you can see here. Those
20 are two-level, a mezzanine and a main floor. There are 36
21 inmates in one special pod and then the balance of the seven
22 contain 50 inmates . Of course, those areas contain the
23 classroom, day room activity space, and the sleeping dorm
24 areas . The thing I want to emphasize about the design of this
25 facility and county jail facilities is that they are an
25
1 analogous . They are analogous to design and layout of county
2 adult correctional facilities, whether you ' re talking about
3 Larimer County, Boulder County or Weld here. Let me point out
4 five specific ways that they are alike. Number one is the
5 life safety systems, the fire, smoke alarms, smoke exhaust,
6 fire protection sprinkler systems are essentially the same.
7 The building construction type has to meet code requirement,
8 has to meet a Minimum Uniform Building Code Type 2 non
9 combustible. You have controlled movement of inmates within
10 these facilities . Del Camino is a lock-down facility, if you
11 will . Of course our county jails are lock-down. This is not
12 a revolving door check in, check out. Sally port situation,
13 of course handles the disposition and intake of people coming
14 and going from this facility. They will not be released at
15 the visitor' s entry to mill about in the tri-city area. That
16 seems to be another assumption that we 've been dealing with
17 all along.
18 Let me point out something else, too. We 've
19 screened and toured other county facilities right here in our
20 own backyard. Both this type of facility, DOC level 2 minimum
21 security inmates, Larimer and Weld County currently have
22 contracts and house minimum security inmates in our
23 facilities . That ' s a fact. Boulder County has had a similar
24 program. They have a 350-bed capacity limit. They currently
25 don' t have DOC inmates, but in talking to the lieutenant
26
1 operating officer there within the last month, if space were
2 available, they would continue to contract that program with
3 the state DOC.
4 Very quickly I 'm going to show you just the upper
5 level of the building. The rendering shows you a pretty good
6 idea of the two-level aspect of the facility, but you can see
7 here that the administration perches on the second level of
8 the facility. It has a view of the front range and in the
9 core of the second level is where the inmate visitation would
10 take place. This is primarily a weekend program. During the
11 week, this space on the second level would primarily be used
12 for staff training and classroom use.
13 The rendering gives you a good visualization of the
14 facility as far as how it would look on the 1-25 corridor, the
15 color rendering. This particular drawing gives you the
16 elevations all the way around the facility. I may be
17 redundant, but I ' ll say it again, John has said it, the
18 building appears, visually, like a suburban high school . The
19 footage, the massing is the same, the rendering speaks for
20 itself . About the only thing we didn' t get is maybe the front
21 range air pollution and maybe some rooftop units on the
22 rendering. But what you see is what you get. The building
23 overall height is 24 feet. The exterior materials are brick
24 and block masonry. It has what ' s known as a membrane roofing
25 system. You can see by the elevations there ' s quite a bit of
27
1 natural light proposed on all elevations, not only in the
2 administration area. Here ' s the outdoor exercise area that
3 has an extensive wall of a plexiglass material , non-breakable
4 material and administration, as well as the daylight skylight
5 hoods into the dayroom pods .
6 I want to make just a couple comments and then I
7 want to open it up to any questions that you may have as a
8 Board. I 'm kind of at the preliminary end of things here, but
9 you will see in this presentation that clearly the task before
10 you is to separate facts from assumptions and assertions .
11 We've dealt with this from neighborhood hearings all the way
12 through Planning Commission to this Board meeting here today.
13 Facts about the facility. Four facts I 'd like to bring home.
14 I do have these that I 've filed with the County Attorney, if
15 you'd like to look at these, I don't know if he distributed
16 them. Fact one: the project is approved by Planning staff .
17 The referral agencies , that ' s the state referral agencies,
18 have thoroughly perused this entire application. The utility
19 districts have also made comment. There ' s nothing that would
20 indicate that there ' s any problem with servicing the facility
21 as designed.
22 The second point: the building design is technically
23 correct. We haven' t had one word from the opposition saying,
24 "Technically this thing won' t work. " We haven' t heard that
25 from any of the commission boards . I think that the one
28
1 question we had came from the Chairperson from the Planning
2 Commission, a question about the non-climbable security fence.
3 I meant to bring that sample along today. Non-issue as far as
4 even the security fencing and some of the other aspects
5 regarding that design.
6 Third point: all life safety issues have been
7 addressed, reviewed and approved. I believe you have a
8 supplemental letter that came back from Mountain View Fire
9 Protection District dated the 2nd of December. There was a
10 question earlier about information whether the district could
11 respond. It had to do with response time and the life safety
12 systems in the building. And staff responded in a pro-active,
13 positive manner, "No problem, we can take care of that. "
14 I 'd like to make one point, you know this whole
15 issue of security, one point that I think cuts to the quick
16 regarding this issue . The pre-release center, as designed, is
17 secure. It ' s as secure as this Weld County adult detention
18 center across the plaza where we have level two DOC inmates .
19 Across the hall , eight feet across the hall, we are now, we
20 have the capability as it was designed, to hold ten juveniles
21 that I 'm sure you ' re aware of . Thirty feet vertically, or
22 less than that, on the third floor bridge, we have a 90-bed
23 work-release facility in this particular portion of the Weld
24 County complex. If Weld County felt that the security
25 restraint classification now imposed on this building by the
29
1 Uniform Building Code, which this building renovation was
2 done, and it ' s also proposed for Del Camino, if Weld County
3 felt that this posed a personal safety threat to this place of
4 assembly here today where I 'm assuming we're looking at 300
5 people, if it were indeed a threat to this place of assembly,
6 would we even be meeting here today? I 'm open to your
7 questions .
8 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Any there any questions for Mr.
9 Bley?
10 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: I have one that I like to ask
11 Loren. You mentioned in your opening comments that, or maybe
12 John did, that the prison system that we have had in the past
13 is not working and this maybe a new concept to have these
14 people incarcerated towards the end of their term through a
15 planning program. If that were not to be worked out, let ' s
16 say that program or plan is not successful, we find out that,
17 again this program is not successful , and we decide to convert
18 this facility into a four or five level security type of
19 program, is it the way that that is designed today, could or
20 would that be done?
21 MR. BLEY: That ' s a good question, Commissioner.
22 Number one, let me say this . You can' t make a paper change to
23 upgrade the higher risk offender to go into the facility as
24 designed. Structurally, the building will not allow that. In
25 other words, you get into more of what I call a bunker-type
30
1 design, fully reinforced perimeter walls and the pod design
2 would have to be completely renovated and the construction
3 cost would be prohibitive to do that. In terms of other
4 development on the project site, that would be subject to a
5 hearing and I think The Villa has discussed that at the
6 Planning Commission hearing. But with regard to the facility
7 as designed, a paper change would not be allowed.
8 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: I have a question regarding, you
9 mentioned a non-climbable fence, and that was my question, is
10 what kind of fencing goes around the perimeter on each side of
11 this building and also if that same kind of fencing is used on
12 the recreation area on the second floor of the facility?
13 MR. BLEY: First of all, the fencing that ' s , let me
14 go back to the site plan if I may. This particular drawing
15 illustrates this is the interior fence in the exercise
16 courtyard. This is the 8-foot high fence which is a cyclone
17 fence, similar gauge and then it ' s topped off with a barbing,
18 if you will, either a barbed wire or an angular barb. The
19 perimeter fence, the gauge is so tight in the mesh that you
20 can' t get the diameter of your fingers or knuckles into it .
21 That ' s what makes it non climbable. It ' s also a heavier gauge
22 than the interior fence. It also comes in any color under the
23 rainbow, so there is an aesthetic consideration. Now I wish
24 I would have brought that sample.
25 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: You put something in our packet
31
1 and I did read some of that, but I just wondered what kind of
2 a space is between them and what goes in the space between
3 them. Is there
4 MR. BLEY: The space between the two fences, you ' re
5 probably looking at about 15 feet of actual separation and
6 its, nothing is in that space other than the fact that you
7 have a screening to keep rodents or anything from burrowing
8 under. And, of course as I mentioned earlier, you have
9 complete camera surveillance on the perimeter of the facility.
10 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: And what do you do to keep them
11 from burrowing under? Not only the rodents, but
12 MR. BLEY: But folks that think they want to get in
13 or out? Let me say that there' s different programs in this
14 fencing situation. You can actually put an alarm system in a
15 fencing system. One of the drawbacks from that is that with
16 the Colorado high winds that we get, you may get a lot of
17 false alarms from just the wind oscillating the fence line.
18 Or you can take it a step further, but there ' s different
19 gradations of things that you can do with the fencing. The
20 main thing is that you can' t get at it with wire cutters and
21 anyone that ' s in the vicinity of the perimeter is going to be
22 seen from two or three central control points .
23 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: I know, I 've been to the, I think
24 its the juvenile corrections facility in southwest Denver
25 where they have double fencing like this and then there' s
32
1 rolled barbed wire in between it.
2 MR. BLEY: Excuse me. Yeah, and I didn' t bring the,
3 yeah, at the
4 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: And I think that it showed it had
5 a top and some in the middle.
6 MR. BLEY: On the documents, on the plans, on the
7 14-foot high fence, there is a radius at the top. In other
8 words it comes up straight for about, I 'm going to say 9 feet
9 and then it rolls back on a radius curve, but a total height
10 of 14 and you have the capability of putting in, hanging a
11 spiral wire from the inside if you so desire. And that was,
12 I believe on the schematic drawings, the five sheets submitted
13 that Commissioner Baxter is looking at.
14 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any other questions for
15 Mr. Bley?
16 MS . KIRKMEYER: The Division of Parks and Outdoor
17 Recreation, could you explain to us how you have addressed the
18 concerns of the parks and recreation area there? I know one
19 of their concerns was the all-night lighting.
20 MR. BLEY: Was this from the state?
21 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Yes .
22 MR. BLEY: Sure, go ahead John.
23 MR. COPPOM: My name is John Coppom, if I may answer
24 that please. The impression of the Parks and Recreation were
25 that the lights there would be the bright white type of lights
33
1 that would also be projected out into the surrounding area.
2 And when we described to them the type of lighting that we
3 were going to have and how it is really down into the area,
4 minimum lighting in the front parking area, that ' s just to
5 watch our cars, that' s really what it ' s about. And minimum in
6 the back, but enough to at night to be able to see the outer
7 perimeter but pointed straight down. They were no longer
8 concerned that that was a problem to the Barbour Ponds . It
9 would be less intrusive than what presently exists at Del
10 Camino, that was their conclusion.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Another question I had, did
12 you say you were going to plant a crested wheat grass, is that
13 what you said.
14 MR. BLEY: We were looking at what we call a fairway
15 crested wheat or something that would establish itself and
16 fill within hopefully a two-year period, a two to three year
17 period. Let me make one other comment, too. We 've worked
18 with Public Service Company before on lighting issues similar
19 to this . A lot of times you go through a test program in
20 which you shield lighting to do exactly what you want it to
21 do. And that would be a part of, not of, working with DOC and
22 The Villa, as well as the surrounding neighbors as far as how
23 the shielding would accomplish where we want lighting and
24 where we need it.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The reason I asked about
34
1 the crested wheat grass is that the City of Longmont had a
2 concern about, that it doesn't provide consistent ground
3 cover? Did you address that concern anywhere in your
4 proposal?
5 MR. BLEY: Well, we, our local nursery man, and the
6 consultant that we talked to here locally said he felt that
7 was a good go for the application that we have. We think that
8 Kentucky Blue, other than on the frontal elevation, you 're
9 just getting into a real maintenance nightmare. Buffalo grass
10 was another suggestion.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: How often do you patrol the
12 perimeter and at what frequency?
13 MR. BLEY: I 'm going to have Michael Brand address
14 that. Are there any questions about Mountain View' s follow-up
15 with the emergency response? There may be someone here from
16 Mountain View that will address that also, but we can do that
17 at a later point in the presentation. Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Any other questions regarding the
19 architecture? John, I know that your group is probably not
20 completed with their presentation, is that correct?
21 MR. COPPOM: That' s correct. We were really
22 prepared to time it so that at your break we would be
23 finished, but
24 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: We are going break for lunch at
25 this time and we will return at 1 : 30, is that acceptable?
35
1 MR. COPPOM: That ' s fine.
2 (Recess taken)
3 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: I would like to reiterate for
4 anyone that may have come in late that if you would like to
5 speak following the presentation, you need to sign a card and
6 you also need to sign the clipboard if you haven' t done it
7 already, just noting your attendance. If you 'd like to speak,
8 you need to sign a card. They're up here on the clerk' s desk.
9 Please put on it your name, your address and if you 're
10 speaking pro or con. If you ' re with an organized group or
11 represented by legal staff or legal counsel would you please
12 give the card to your legal counsel and legal counsel will
13 hand them to me at the time when he wants public testimony
14 from his people. So, otherwise, if you ' re not with an
15 organized group represented by legal counsel, will you leave
16 your card on the desk with the clerk and everyone that signed
17 a card who wishes to speak, is to do that, okay. Yes sir?
18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE : On the registration,
19 do we have to put for or against on the registration?
20 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: No. Just your name and address
21 on the clipboard. Thank you. There ' s been some
22 misinformation that people were told that if they would call
23 in today during the hearing that their comments would be put
24 on the record. I don' t know where that information came from.
25 It is not true. We are not accepting phone calls today. If
36
1 you want to be a part of the record you either need to speak
2 or you need to have turned in a letter or we would accept the
3 letter today if you have five copies, actually six copies of
4 it . Legal staff needs one, the five commissioners each needs
5 one. So that is not correct and I don' t know where the
6 information came from.
7 Where were we? Again, I ' d also like to reiterate
8 that we will be, the criteria were read for this hearing. We
9 will not be taking testimony on whether or not people should
10 be put on probation or whether the state should have probation
11 facilities . Those responsibilities do not belong to county
12 commissioners .
13 Mr. Coppom, I believe we ' re ready to start again.
14 Let the record show all five commissioners are present .
15 MR. COPPOM: My name is John Coppom. Our next
16 speaker will be Vern Nelson, the engineer. We do, again, beg
17 your indulgence, but because of the delay this morning, we
18 have a couple of speakers who have other commitments and have
19 to go elsewhere . So, Vern Nelson will be followed by Dr.
20 Spence Anneberg and then Michael Brand will explain one other
21 shift with a young lady that needs to be back in Fort Collins
22 in the middle of the afternoon. So, Vern Nelson, please.
23 MR. NELSON: My name is LaVern C. Nelson. I 'm with
24 Nelson Engineers . I 'm the engineering agent for the applicant
25 here today. My office is at 822 7th Street here in Greeley.
37
1 I ' ve had about 35 years of engineering experience in Weld
2 County and I am a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer.
3 I 've had a great deal of experience dealing in zoning and
4 development issues in Weld County.
5 With respect to this PUD today, I wish to take a few
6 minutes to provide some history regarding development in the
7 Del Camino area and the site of this subject PUD. In the past
8 years, development pressures have been very high for
9 development in that area, but no convenient vehicle was
10 available to provide for those zone changes that had been
11 requested from the area agricultural zoning prior to the early
12 1980 ' s . The Comprehensive Plan policy statement very clearly
13 encourages the preservation of agricultural uses in Weld
14 County without the interference of incompatible residential,
15 commercial , and industrial land uses . Additionally, areas in
16 Weld County such as the Del Camino, are relatively small but
17 active commercial development and residential areas could not
18 expand due to the current use commitment and lack of community
19 water and sewage systems . An amendment to the Comprehensive
20 Plan was developed to provide a vehicle for rezoning from
21 agricultural uses . In that amendment, the I-25 Mixed Use
22 Development which you heard about earlier, was defined and
23 incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance 147
24 adopted in 1987 . That Ordinance provided for development that
25 requires urban services in the I-25 Mixed Use Development, MUD
38
1 we call it, area which includes this site.
2 After that, the St . Vrain Sanitation District was
3 created and a complete public sewage system is now in place to
4 serve development in that area. Public water supplies have
5 also been enhanced recently by the development of new supply
6 lines into the area. Other utilities have also been expanded
7 in a similar manner to serve the area. Several PUD districts
8 have been developed within the I-25 Mixed Use Development, and
9 I might add more are pending. The Fort Junction PUD was one
10 of those districts created to provide for future development
11 in this area. The Fort Junction PUD meets the objectives and
12 goals of the I-25 Mixed Use Development area, as well as the
13 intent of the defined Planned Unit Development District as
14 described in Section 35 . 1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
15 The planned development, as submitted in September 2 , 1993 ,
16 will conform to the performance standards of Section 35 . 3 of
17 that Zoning Ordinance. Prior to discussing the Plat note, I
18 would like to submit for the record a chronology of events
19 with respect to this particular PUD district site .
20 A church was planned for the site some time prior to
21 the PUD rezoning that occurred under USR 7698650 in late 1986
22 and prior to the I-25 Mixed Use Development concept . The
23 project, as envisioned by the USR, was not pursued or recorded
24 for various reasons, one of which I understand is that the
25 minister who was the driving force, died. The church then
39
1 offered the property for sale. Denver developer Hawkiss
2 purchased the land on contract and proceeded to change the
3 zone to PUD. This he did, in fact, the applicant remained the
4 New Creation Church, and the intent of that PUD was not to
5 develop a church, but for other commercial and industrial
6 uses . Hawkiss never completed the purchase, so ownership
7 remained with the church and still does . However, the
8 requested rezoning was accomplished under Case Z-448 on March
9 8, 1989 . The district plat was filed in February of 1990 .
10 The submittal date for the final PUD plan was extended on June
11 15, 1993 by the Weld County Planning Commission. There were
12 no objectors at the meeting to review the requested extension.
13 The stated purpose of the PUD, according to Weld County
14 Comprehensive Plan is to provide more flexibility for
15 development than standard zoning and to allow mixed land uses
16 in unincorporated areas of Weld County. Such development
17 potential does increase the land values and when development
18 is not allowed or zoning is downgraded, property values in the
19 area are generally reduced. Until zoning issues are
20 solidified and conditions of development make development
21 feasible are met, very little increase in activity,
22 development activity, occurs . That has been the case with
23 this specific site, which has been on the market for upwards
24 to six years .
25 The condition of the Fort Junction PUD rezoning are
40
1 described by the filed plat notes A through M on the PUD
2 district plat. I 'm sure each of you have had an opportunity
3 to look at that PUD district plat. If you 've not seen the
4 full-sized one, at least you 've seen a reduced size. I want
5 to discuss each one of those plan notes to relieve you of any
6 concern that we now, in filing the final PUD plat, can meet
7 the conditions of that initial filing.
8 Note A required the creation of a law enforcement
9 authority. That has not been done, but that issue is covered
10 in a letter from Sheriff Jordan to John Coppom. The Sheriff
11 says in that letter, "In my opinion, that area can be
12 adequately covered by the Weld County Sheriff ' s Office and a
13 separate law development authority is not required to police
14 the Del Camino area . "
15 Note B of that plat discussed the development of
16 public roads . Well, as a matter of fact, what we are
17 proposing in this final plat, there are no public roads
18 involved in the development of this so that matter is moot.
19 All of the roads are private.
20 Note C, the culmination of inactivity of this area
21 and the desire of the Colorado Department of Transportation to
22 proceed with design and development of a new interchange and
23 frontage roads at the Del Camino resulted in the State of
24 Colorado proceeding with its own plans and incorporating the
25 construction of the east frontage road in its budget and
41
1 rebuilding schedule. Now, Note C required that the developer
2 of that site provide that frontage road, that requirement
3 being made at the time the plat was filed. Upon discussion
4 with the Colorado Department of Transportation while planning
5 this project, it was learned that Colorado Department of
6 Transportation planned to build a frontage road and the land
7 owner was relieved of the requirement of plat Note C by letter
8 of May 31 , 1993, from the Colorado Department of
9 Transportation. The only requirement remaining with respect
10 to Note C is that the land owner shall provide an 80-foot
11 right-of-way for the planned realignment of the frontage road
12 and turning lanes at the entrance when traffic on the frontage
13 road warrants . Specific alignment for the right-of-way has
14 not been established by the Colorado Department of
15 Transportation; however, the owners have agreed to provide
16 that right-of-way at the time that information becomes
17 available.
18 Note D. This referred to the alignment of the
19 frontage road south of Weld County Road 24 . All that asked
20 for was that the frontage road on the north side of Weld
21 County Road 24 and the frontage road on the south side of Weld
22 County Road 24 would meet at the same point, at the same
23 intersection.
24 Note E had to do with access to Weld County Road
25 24-1/2 . As you saw on the map earlier, 24-1/2 is immediately
42
1 adjacent to the site on the north side and that is not an
2 issue since the applicant does not intend to access that
3 particular road.
4 Note F required that the applicant provide access to
5 the Kahn property, the Kahn property being that adjacent on
6 the south of this site and there is no problem in providing
7 that access from the frontage road.
8 Traffic master plan, Note G and H had to do with
9 traffic studies and plans . Those are incorporated in the
10 traffic study provided specifically for this PUD. There are
11 two proposed accesses to the I-25 frontage road which you saw,
12 and each is estimated by our traffic engineer, Gene Coppola,
13 to have an average daily traffic count of 60 units . The
14 current traffic study has been submitted with the application.
15 You have the information there. No specific or extensive
16 construction is required to comply with the recommendation of
17 that report. In the course of our preparing our application,
18 there also became available a report that was done for the
19 Colorado Department of Transportation for the 119/I-25
20 interchange. That was accomplished by the firm of Felsberg-
21 Holt of Denver. That report, the results of that report and
22 the one by Gene Coppola have been incorporated and do concur
23 with respect to the traffic patterns in the immediate area.
24 Note I had to do with drainage plans . Those have
25 been developed. As part of the plan, there will be two
43
1 detention ponds on the site to capture all of the run-off from
2 the developed area, and that run-off will be released into the
3 existing drainage facilities at the calculated historical rate
4 of run-off from the same area. Undisturbed areas of the 22-
5 acre site will maintain their historical drainage patterns .
6 Note J had to do with a weed control plan. We have
7 created a weed control plan. It ' s part of the application and
8 a letter from the Longmont Soil Conservation District provides
9 concurrence with that plan.
10 Note K had to do with the Longmont Fire Protection
11 District requirements and they are being satisfied in the
12 final plan as you heard earlier.
13 Note L, the site plan review. In accord with
14 Section 33 . 4 . 5 is in process as required.
15 Note M had to do with geology and adjacent concerns
16 of, for example, the rural ditch and the rural ditch is not
17 being affected by this initial PUD since all development will
18 be north of and downstream from the ditch. Jack Hill has
19 agreed by telephone that the PUD will not affect the operation
20 of their ditch. The Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed
21 the geologic information submitted and has notified my office
22 that Jeff Hines believes the entire PUD district may have
23 significant gravel deposits but the 22-acre site by itself
24 does not warrant any further discussion and the removal of
25 gravel therefrom becomes a moot point from the view point of
44
1 the Colorado Geological Survey.
2 The PUD plan application identifies all the
3 utilities that will provide service to the site.
4 Representatives of each of those utilities has seen the plan,
5 has signed the plan, and have commented that their service is
6 available. Briefly, water is available from the Central Weld
7 County Water District and there is an existing 12-inch line in
8 Weld County Road 24 and that will be extended northerly along
9 the frontage road to serve this area. It will be a joint cost
10 item. Sanitary sewer facilities you heard earlier. The
11 sanitation district has an 18-inch sanitary sewer line on the
12 property, on an easement on the property that will be utilized
13 to provide the service to the new facility. Rocky Mountain
14 Natural Gas, there is a 3-inch distribution line existing on
15 the east side of the I-25 frontage road adjacent to the
16 development. Telephone, US West will provide the telephone
17 service. Electric power will be provided by United Power who
18 states in their letter that they are ready, willing and able
19 to provide the electric service to the site. Fire protection
20 will be by, as I said, Mountain View Fire Protection District,
21 and the required fire flows and hydrant locations have been
22 determined and are agreed to by the applicant and the
23 district. We believe that that takes care of the utilities .
24 It ' s my opinion that this application conforms with
25 the performance standards of Section 35 . 3 of the Weld County
45
1 Zoning Ordinance and that the Planned Unit Development plat
2 and the supporting documents satisfy the legitimate concerns
3 of the Planning Commission and the Weld County Commissioners
4 as described in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the
5 Zoning Ordinance . This concludes my comments and I will
6 answer questions if there are any.
7 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Mr.
8 Nelson?
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I have a question that
10 perhaps maybe Keith can answer. In our packet, I notice a
11 letter from the Colorado Geological Survey. In the second
12 paragraph in there, something about an understanding that the
13 mineral resource issue has been addressed. Would you clarify
14 that for me please?
15 MR. SCHUETT: Yes, ma ' am. The mineral resource
16 issue is an issue that was reviewed at the change of zone
17 stage. That was the appropriate application process in which
18 it was reviewed, rather than at the final plat stage as we are
19 here today. So it ' s really not an issue with this final plat
20 or final plan stage.
21 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any other questions?
22 Thank you, Vern.
23 MR. COPPOM: Our next presenter is Dr. Anneberg.
24 DR. ANNEBERG: My name is Dr. Spence Anneberg. My
25 office address in Greeley is 909 28th Avenue. I am a
46
1 physician who has lived here in Weld County for 13 years now.
2 I practice psychiatry and I have a nice family of four
3 children ranging in age from 9 to 18 . My wife is a teacher.
4 My professional experiences include a number of visits to
5 jails to examine inmates . During my medical internship I had
6 occasions to perform minor surgery on inmates inside the South
7 Dakota State Prison. In my current practice I also have
8 occasion to interview ex-offenders . When I examine these
9 people alone in my office, they really are the same people as
10 anyone else. I have reviewed the proposed curriculum to be
11 used in the intensive rehabilitation pre-release facility.
12 The planned activities and efforts in this curriculum, I
13 believe are wonderful . As a medical doctor in the human
14 services field, I can testify that this proposed facility will
15 be a rehabilitation center. At the same time, the center will
16 be carrying out the security aspects associated with prison
17 terms for offenders . This facility' s main mission will be the
18 rehabilitation of offenders just before they re-enter our
19 society. Up to now, many of us citizens have felt that
20 prisons do not rehabilitate offenders . Instead, I feel and
21 many people feel, they have tended to educate offenders in
22 even more crime. This proposed facility will actually provide
23 rehabilitation. The proposed pre-release facility, in my
24 opinion, will provide a wonderful opportunity for these people
25 to actually have a second chance at leading normal, productive
47
1 lives in our communities after they are released. The
2 curriculum looks exciting. The curriculum attempts to address
3 many of the issues that got these folks in trouble in the
4 first place . The rehabilitation program gives these people a
5 second chance and opportunity. This, in turn, gives us
6 citizens a chance . These people are going to return to our
7 communities anyway, so let ' s try to maximize their opportunity
8 for success . We cannot just write off offenders and expect
9 that their negative impact will somehow disappear from our
10 society. Throughout history, in my opinion, we Americans have
11 tried to ignore and deny the reality of the existence of crime
12 and of the offenders . I believe it ' s time for us to wake up.
13 Crime is hitting us right squarely in the face all over
14 America. We do need to try to help these offenders after we
15 have punished them and thereby be helping our own communities .
16 I believe that this facility will attempt to rehabilitate
17 these people . I believe it is imperative that we, as a
18 nation, and we as a county, that we care about these offender
19 people just as we care about ourselves . Caring about all
20 people is supposedly what we are all about.
21 Now, let ' s talk about the problem of crime in our
22 society. Crime is a huge problem. None of us like crime.
23 Many of us are very, very frightened about crime. In the past
24 12 months , we have been inundated with crime stories . Crime
25 is all around us .
48
1 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Could you stick to the program
2 that you ' re going to present? We're not here to decide what
3 crime is, okay?
4 DR. ANNEBERG: I might have some difficulty altering
5 the way I 've written my speech.
6 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Okay, well if you could just
7 refer to the program that you' re going to present .
8 DR. ANNEBERG: I 'm trying to give the Board a
9 concept here that crime is located everywhere in our society,
10 it is not just located inside of a prison and the concept that
11 we are afraid of a prison needs to be blended in or melted in
12 with the concept that we all are afraid of crime everywhere.
13 The opposition has, and will focus, on a pre-release
14 facility as the object of their fear, as the source of their
15 fear. We should be afraid of the prison, we should be afraid
16 of the criminals , we should be afraid of the people who visit
17 the prison, etc . I believe, folks, that this is misdirected
18 fear. I believe that these are misplaced fears . Part of the
19 debate you folks are going to have to deal with today is the
20 following: Is there a sound, solid foundation of fact behind
21 the fears that you're going to hear about today? I believe
22 that there is no basis for the fears surrounding this pre-
23 release facility. However, there is a plenty big basis for
24 our everyday fear of crime in Weld County. For instance, in
25 1990 in Weld County, there were 8, 625 crimes committed but
49
1 only 2 ,000 of those were ever solved. Seventy-five percent
2 then of the criminals who committed crimes in Weld County in
3 1990 still remain right amongst us . People who do crime,
4 then, are everywhere.
5 I want to talk briefly to you folks about leadership
6 and decision making. Leaders are people who objectively
7 review input that they receive from various sources . Leaders
8 are not people who allow themselves to be manipulated by fear
9 portrayals . You folks can indeed anticipate that fear
10 inductions will be done today during this meeting. Certainly
11 everybody does have a right to speak and they will be allowed
12 to do so. But I would urge you leaders simply not to make
13 important decisions by reacting to people ' s fears and opinions
14 that have no basis .
15 In terms of decision making, in public health
16 decision making for instance, good quality decisions are based
17 on reviewing the facts, the objective facts and not swayed on
18 emotion. A good example of fear induction that ' s been used in
19 the past in the public health arena swirled around the issue
20 of fluoridation. For instance, some of the people back in the
21 50 ' s and 60 ' s claimed that fluoridation was a Communist plot
22 and persuaded the community leaders to ban that. So I 'm
23 saying that good leaders are leaders, they' re not followers .
24 Good leaders should not be led by other people ' s fears if the
25 other people ' s fears are not based on facts . When successful
50
1 opposition induces its fears into the leadership, then it
2 results in leaders following the crowd. I would challenge you
3 folks today then, to make your decisions and to make your good
4 decisions based on objective review of the facts . Please
5 weigh the facts that you're hearing today more than the
6 emotions .
7 Based on my review of the several factual studies
8 that have been done pertaining to the issue of studies of
9 safety around these pre-parole facilities, it appears that the
10 facts overwhelmingly indicate that this particular pre-parole
11 facility is a safe addition to a community. I believe that
12 the overstated fears that you will hear about later today are
13 not based on fact. Remember, this is a rehabilitation pre-
14 parole facility. These offenders are going to be returned to
15 their communities anyway, whether this facility is built or
16 not. I would then, rather that these offenders enter our
17 communities with a reasonable chance to succeed without this
18 type of rehabilitation being offered in this proposed
19 facility, these offenders will continue to live out the self-
20 fulfilling prophecy of failure and then we all lose. We say
21 we are worried sick about crime. I think it ' s time then that
22 we do something about that. I think we should develop
23 programs that deal with offenders more effectively. Let ' s try
24 to stop the revolving door. Let Weld County stand up and be
25 counted. Let Weld County do itself proud that we are doing
51
1 something about crime. Let Weld County show courage to get
2 beyond fears .
3 I want to make a brief comment about the, "Not in My
4 Back Yard" syndrome. The "Not in My Backyard" mentality
5 really should not be considered in land use considerations
6 when the facts show nothing but safety and compatibility in
7 that backyard. Besides, we really don' t have the luxury of
8 the "Not in My Backyard" thinking today. We are a community,
9 we are like a big family and the essence of a healthy big
10 family is that we have to deal with our problems, we cannot
11 deny them away and we cannot ship them away. Instead, we have
12 to stare at our problems and deal with them. They just won't
13 go away. Saying that a different way, our societal problems,
14 that of crime, are already in our own backyards .
15 So, in summary, I challenge you, the leaders of this
16 Weld County family of peoples . I challenge you to break new
17 grounds . I challenge you to think carefully and to weigh
18 carefully your decision today. I challenge you to lead your
19 people beyond their fears . I challenge you to not capitulate
20 the fear inductions when the fear is not based on fact. We
21 must move forward in Colorado. We must find new ways to meet
22 the challenges of crime . I believe we must not sit back and
23 let crime tear apart our families, our nation and our society
24 and our homes . As a medical doctor, as a psychiatrist, and as
25 a father of four children, I believe this pre-parole facility
52
1 is a small, but significant step in the right direction.
2 MS . HARBERT: Are there any questions for Dr.
3 Anneberg? Thank you, doctor.
4 MR. BRAND: Commissioners, my name ' s Michael Brand.
5 I 'm the corrections director for The Villa. I 've worked 20
6 years in corrections . I 've worked in prisons from maximum
7 security to minimum security and positions ranging from
8 correctional officer or guard to positions of being a security
9 director in a prison that handled maximum to minimum security
10 inmates .
11 A couple of comments first, or a couple of people
12 here that you may want to rely upon to answer some questions .
13 One of them is Tom Waters . Mr. Tom Waters is an attorney from
14 the Department of Corrections who can address any Department
15 of Corrections issues . Also here are Chuck Boise and Chief
16 Ward from the Mountain View Fire District who can respond to
17 some issues if those arise.
18 I want to address three topics today. The first is
19 compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Weld County
20 Zoning Ordinance. The second is information on our
21 rehabilitative purpose and program of this facility. And the
22 third is extensive information and examples regarding
23 compatibility, community safety, and land value information.
24 Before I do that, I need to introduce one of our
25 witnesses . Miss Libby Glass works for WW Reynolds, who
53
1 developed the Prospect Park East Commercial and Industrial
2 Development Area. That development park is immediately
3 adjacent to the Larimer County Detention Center. The Larimer
4 County Jail Detention Center is 110, 000 square feet. It has
5 361 beds and 110 staff, virtually identical to the size of the
6 facility that we ' re looking at in our application. So I 'd
7 like to yield the floor briefly to Ms . Glass and then continue
8 my presentation.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: What is the difference
10 between a detention center and a pre-release or pre-parole
11 facility?
12 MR. BRAND: The Larimer County Detention Center is
13 their county jail, if you will . They deal with people from
14 the least serious crimes , traffic offenses and warrants to the
15 most serious kind of offense from the most violent and
16 serious . They deal with what they call unclassified
17 offenders . They don't know who they' re getting into their
18 facility. A difference is also that they have a much shorter
19 length of stay than what we' re talking about with the pre-
20 release center. The last difference I 'd note is that that is
21 considered a maximum security facility as are other county
22 jails because they deal with every level of inmate security.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: What ' s their approximate
24 length of stay?
25 MR. BRAND: I think the average in the State of
54
1 Colorado is 15 days . That includes unsentenced and sentenced
2 people in county jails . Any other questions before I yield
3 the floor briefly? Thank you.
4 MISS GLASS : I 'm Libby Glass . Can you hear me? I 'm
5 Libby Glass, 1304 Morgan Street in Fort Collins and I am
6 project manager for the WW Reynolds Companies . We have been
7 in the real estate development business for approximately 30
8 years in the Boulder area, in the Fort Collins area, primarily
9 in the office industrial park development. I 'm not a public
10 speaker. I don' t have a prepared text and if you want to
11 interrupt at any time and ask me any questions, please feel
12 free to do so. Can you see this map over here, or would you
13 rather I
14 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Is that a copy of what was in our
15 packet?
16 MISS GLASS : It is .
17
18 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Okay.
19 MISS GLASS : Maybe the best way to do is I can
20 point. Yes , that ' s fine. I ' ll just speak real loudly.
21 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Take the mike with you, please.
22 MR. MORRISON: You need to take the mike with you,
23 please.
24 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: The cord is not real long, well
25 maybe it is .
55
1 MISS GLASS: What I want to do and I won' t stand
2 here the whole time, is just to show you where the detention
3 facility is . We purchased this 90-acre park about 8 or 9
4 years ago. This is the Larimer County Detention Facility
5 here. And the park is approximately 70% developed. We have
6 about 500, 000 square feet of developed buildings and some of
7 the companies who have chosen to locate in the Prospect East
8 Business Park are Hewlett Packard, Viapont Pharmaceuticals who
9 make Viadent toothpaste, Advanced Energy has three buildings
10 in the park, they do power enhancers, Motorola, Digital
11 Equipment and several other names that you probably might not
12 be as familiar with. In addition, we also have a daycare
13 center that we really believe is an amenity to our park. In
14 this building up here, can you see that one right up there,
15 Seven Oaks Academy has approximately 150 full time equivalent
16 students and have been in the park for about three years and
17 they' re at capacity right now. They have a nursery, they have
18 a preschool, after school program, and they also have a
19 certified kindergarten program. The Poudre River Recreational
20 Trail runs along Sharp Point Drive there and goes out in the
21 midst of these city lakes back to the nature center. I 'm also
22 in the process right now of talking to another private school .
23 Anybody who ' s in real estate knows that a deal ' s not a deal
24 until it ' s signed, but they would be going in 7 ,200 square
25 feet within the park in this location right here .
56
1 I also would like to say, I forgot to say when I
2 came up to the podium, that I really don't support or oppose
3 the project. I have no opinion whatsoever on the project. I
4 don' t know that much about the project. I 'm just basically
5 here to share what my experience has been, both in Prospect
6 East Business Park and also in our business park in Boulder
7 County which is also, it ' s basically the same set-up. The
8 difference is we have 60 acres in Boulder right across the
9 street from the Boulder County Detention Facility and we have
10 90 acres here. I don ' t know as much about our business park
11 there because I don' t have anything to do with it, but I do
12 know that Hauser Chemical has about an about 80, 000 square
13 foot facility there and Synergen and a couple of other people
14 that we 've done build-to-suits for. And our experience has
15 been that it really is kind of a non-issue. I know when the
16 daycare center first came to look at it, the wife was
17 concerned about it . They moved here from Nebraska. But after
18 talking with the tenants within the park, almost all of whom
19 have when it ' s time to renew their leases, almost all of them
20 had renewed. I got off the track. She was concerned about
21 it, but it basically became a non-issue and they have been
22 there for three years . They are in a ten-year lease. It ' s
23 very successful . It' s a daycare facility for, the pricing is
24 probably like a Children' s World or Kindercare or something
25 like that. They have computers and gymnastics equipment and
57
1 all of that. It ' s a full-scale daycare facility. As a matter
2 of fact, a lot of the employees at the Detention Facility have
3 their children there and also within the business park. What
4 else can I tell you? Excuse me.
5 Well , it' s a beautiful park. I don' t think that
6 really has anything to do with anything, but since I brought
7 the pictures, I ' ll show you. These are pictures of both the
8 Lake Center Park which is the one in Boulder, and also the
9 Prospect East Business Park. And I think the real reason I
10 brought this and I remember now, is so that you can see the
11 flowers . We work with the Larimer County people so that the
12 business park will have a consistent look and when they
13 expanded their facility, we met with the commissioners and
14 talked with them about how important it was to have a
15 consistent look and they were obviously in support of that.
16 And they kind of just integrated into the business park. It
17 has worked out very well for us in both locations . It really
18 is a non-issue from a security standpoint. Not only do we
19 have the detention facility, but the city shooting range is
20 also within the business park, the indoor shooting range. So,
21 consequently, we have, excuse me, we have county deputy
22 sheriff ' s vehicles and city police vehicles within the park
23 24-hours a day. In the 9 years that we've been there we've
24 had one theft and that was within a company, a disgruntled
25 employee. Security, really, we basically have free security
58
1 and we use that as a selling point and it really has worked
2 very well for us, because a lot of business parks do have to
3 hire security and we don't. What else can I tell you?
4 Oh, directly across the street is the Seven Lakes
5 Business Park. That' s about 100,000 square feet and it ' s an
6 upper end business park where there are some medical
7 facilities, there are some other light industrial facilities
8 and also the Fort Collins Orthopedic Associates just built a
9 50, 000 square foot facility just east of our park, just across
10 the street . So as far as land use compatibility, in our
11 situation it has worked very well . A mile up the street you
12 have, you know, some of the nicest residential areas in town.
13 Actually in two different directions . Fort Collins High
14 School has purchased property located about a mile and a half
15 south of our park. An apartment complex. You know, it ' s just
16 right in the middle of a lot of different uses and it' s worked
17 very well . And I would just reiterate that the Poudre
18 Recreational Trail is right there, the city owned recreational
19 trail and a lot of our park employees go out and use that
20 during the day. Do you have any questions?
21 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Miss
22 Glass?
23 MISS GLASS : Nope? Thank you very much. Good luck.
24 Could I just say one more thing? I just wanted to say that
25 I 'm just so impressed that so many people have shown up. I
59
1 mean, this is in the middle of the week in the middle of the
2 day. It really is incredible for this many people to care
3 this much on both sides . I 'm really impressed. I know you 're
4 impressed I 'm impressed.
5 MR. MORRISON: The photographs have been marked as
6 an exhibit.
7 MISS GLASS : Can't we keep them?
8 MR. MORRISON: No, because that ' s a duplicate of
9 something that ' s already been provided for the record. Those
10 photographs aren' t otherwise in the record?
11 MISS GLASS : Okay, and when can I get them back?
12 MR. MORRISON: Well, if we can get a duplicate of
13 those, we can substitute it, but I need to keep them for now.
14 MS . HARBERT: I think if you get a duplicate of the
15 pictures . They don' t need to be mounted do they?
16 MR. MORRISON: No.
17 MR. BRAND: Commissioners, I want to apologize for
18 having to have a couple of people out of order. It did
19 disrupt the flow of our presentation, but we're dealing with
20 time frames that they have and closings and all of that. To
21 get back to the issues I want to address, again, one is
22 information on the rehabilitative purpose and program of our
23 facility. I believe that' s important. Two is compliance with
24 all expectations and requirements in the Comprehensive Plan as
25 well as the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and also further
60
1 information and examples regarding compatibility, community
2 safety and land values in areas immediately adjacent to
3 correctional facilities .
4 On the pre-parole release center' s rehabilitative
5 intent, it started with the enabling legislation. This is in
6 your packet. I gave you a packet today that looked like this
7 when it came. What the enabling legislation said is that the
8 facility or program provides in-residence programs and
9 services to instruct such inmates in obtaining and holding
10 regular employment, in the process of enrolling in and
11 maintaining academic courses and vocational training, in
12 utilizing the resources of the community after release, in
13 meeting their personal and family need and responsibility and
14 providing appropriate in-residence treatment and participating
15 in whatever in-residence specialized programs are available.
16 When the Department of Corrections let the RFP, the
17 request for proposals in January of 1992 , their intent and
18 what their statement was that the pre-release program design
19 will focus on programs identifying and assessing individual
20 needs and establishing community linkages for continuation of
21 treatment and related services upon release into society.
22 Program structure will include six classroom hours per day,
23 five days per week with curriculum on a twelve-week cycle.
24 What we didn't emphasize enough really in our
25 application was really happens inside the pre-parole release
61
1 facility. And that ' s an important issue for you to
2 understand. You do have in your packet, in your initial
3 packet somewhere, it' s right behind a blue page that is
4 labeled "Program Components" . That lists all of the program
5 components that we proposed to the state. And I don' t want to
6 spend a lot of time going through them, but it ' s important for
7 you to understand the depth of our program. The program staff
8 as outlined in our proposal includes two curriculum directors
9 and 24 teachers or instructors , if you will . So we ' re
10 dedicating a lot of money and staff just to provide the
11 programmatic elements beyond the basic security elements .
12 Components include, I ' ll just quickly mention some of them:
13 Chemical dependency, looking at the sociological aspects of
14 alcohol and drug use; looking at adult children of chemically
15 dependent parents; the 12-step program; looking at a component
16 on employment, assessing their previous experience; helping
17 them with the resumes; administering tests such as a general
18 aptitude test battery; trying to establish as best we can
19 employment for the people when they' re released from the
20 facility so that they can move right into a job. That ' s one
21 of our liaison functions from the facility to the community.
22 Job-seeking skills issues and the education component we deal
23 with basic literacy training; adult basic education; we do
24 assessment instruments like the test of Adult Basic Education,
25 the GATBY Test, the Wide-Range Achievement Test, etc. to
62
1 assess their academic acumen and at what level they are and to
2 what kind of agency they should be referred to in the
3 community. We have a relapse prevention component dealing
4 with compulsive behaviors, etc . , cognitive restructuring
5 dealing with creative thinking, problem-solving, management of
6 emotions, social skills, critical reasoning, etc . The
7 rehabilitation program has interpersonal skills, anger
8 management, communication skills, family relations I think is
9 very important as well as domestic violence. We ' re dealing
10 with people who ' ve been incarcerated for just over 3 years on
11 the average. They' re re-entering a family situation in which
12 they may or may not have been in control . Certainly they're
13 re-entering a family situation where they' re going to have to
14 re-establish some role. Are they going to be the leader, now?
15 Are they going to be able to deal with their child who was an
16 infant when they went to prison and who is now four years old.
17 Practical issues of release such as that. Deal with a
18 dysfunctional family. A lot of our people come from
19 dysfunctional families . Health and wellness . An important
20 one I think is what we call special needs offender component.
21 We will be dealing with people who have limitations . They
22 have academic limitations such that they can't read at all .
23 And we have to provide a program for them. We have people who
24 don't speak English. We need to provide a program for them.
25 We have people who have significant, but manageable physical
63
1 or mental health limitations and we need to deal effectively
2 with them. Those people, the special needs offenders, need
3 more one-on-one work and they need more specific referrals
4 back to the community.
5 While I state, you know clearly, and this program is
6 a rehabilitation center, I ' ll say that we ' ll do what we can in
7 90 days, an average of 90 days . We recognize we ' re not going
8 to rehabilitate everyone in 90 days . The most important part
9 of the pre-release program is that we insure a continuum of
10 services from what we assess and from what we know about the
11 people back into the community. That referral system not only
12 is to specific community resources like chemical dependency
13 and mental health and employment, etc. , but it ' s also a
14 liaison service back to law enforcement and back to the parole
15 officer to which they' re reporting. So we ' re preparing the
16 offender for release. We ' re also trying to prepare the
17 community for the offender' s release.
18 I ' d like now to move to compliance issues . Could
19 you put this second one up there, Loren? You have in your
20 packet, the one that you received today here . The first thing
21 in there is a memo to the Commission from myself that deals
22 specifically with all the applicable requirements and
23 conditions established by the Comp Plan and by Zoning
24 Ordinance. Your Zoning Ordinance states that this Commission
25 shall approve the request for the PUD Plan unless it finds the
64
1 applicant has not met one or more of the applicable
2 requirements or conditions of 28 . 9 , 28 . 12 . 7 and 28 . 13 . The
3 Zoning Ordinance goes on to state that we, as applicants , have
4 the burden of proof to show that the above standards and
5 conditions are met. That ' s what this memo is going to do. We
6 are going to show that we meet all of the conditions in our
7 application materials, our application packet we, in the
8 section titled, "PUD Procedural Guide, Application
9 Requirements, " Mr. Nelson went over many of them, and outlined
10 in our application is our compliance with all Ordinance and
11 Department of Planning Services expectations . We have
12 supporting attachments that follow. We went 1 through 29
13 specifically, as requested, and addressed each of those
14 issues . All of the required architectural and engineer ' s maps
15 and drawings are complete and are submitted as part of the
16 application. There ' s no utility or infrastructure or
17 environmental concerns related to this application.
18 In addition to the information included in the PUD
19 Development Plan, the following further demonstrates our
20 compliance with requirements outlined under Section 28 . 13 .
21 28 . 13 states that the proposal is consistent with the Weld
22 County Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the I-25 Mixed Use
23 Development area, the Comprehensive Plan states that the
24 District allows residential , commercial , industrial and
25 institutional uses to occur after they have been reviewed and
65
1 approved according to the PUD application process . The PUD
2 application process is an approach which promotes freedom,
3 flexibility and creativity. In the absence of a definition of
4 the term ' institutional ' in your Ordinance, I ' ll use the
5 common accepted definition. According to Random House,
6 ' institution' is defined as "a place of confinement as a
7 prison, mental hospital, etc . " Our position is that the
8 proposed land use, the pre-parole release center, is an
9 institution and for that reason is allowed in the I-25 MUD as
10 described in the Comprehensive Plan.
11 We need to demonstrate that our plan conforms to the
12 local PUD District that ' s already been established. That ' s
13 your Ordinance 28 . 13 . 1 . 2 . The existing PUD District is
14 current and its approved for commercial and industrial land
15 use as follows : "I-1 ten acres, 215, 000 square feet. C-1
16 through C-4 , 22 acres, 470,000 square feet. " The existing
17 Fort Junction PUD District then, allows for all levels of
18 commercial development as well as light industrial . We, the
19 applicants, have submitted a PUD plan for 123, 000 square feet
20 of development on 22+ acres within the district. We assert
21 that our proposed land usage in this application meets a
22 commercial definition as described in the Weld County Zoning
23 Ordinance. Although correctional or pre-release are not
24 specifically named in the Ordinance, we ' re relying as have
25 many previous applicants on your Ordinance 5 . 10, "All Uses
66
1 Allowed By Right, Temporary Uses, and Uses by Special Review
2 listed in this Ordinance are representative and are not all-
3 inclusive" . Because pre-release, pre-parole release center is
4 not listed, does not mean that it is not a permitted use or
5 that it ' s a non-permitted use as will be asserted by the
6 opposition. Further, we are an Overlay District. Do you have
7 that overhead, Loren?
8 I want to talk about the Overlay District a little
9 bit. The Commission established I-25 Mixed Use Development
10 area as an Overlay District. The Overlay District, to just go
11 over it briefly, says basically that there ' s unincorporated
12 areas within the county that have urban-type services .
13 Basically, you have utilities and roads, etc . And the basic
14 language is that that creates more flexibility in use and more
15 flexibility in your decision-making process . It' s further
16 recognized in your Ordinance that the PUD procedure permits a
17 greater range of flexibility than the standard zoning system
18 which does not always balance the capacity of a site with
19 compatibility to the neighborhood. Our position is and we' re
20 going to have a lot of evidence showing that we are compatible
21 with the neighborhood. That is not an issue. We are
22 compatible . But what the Overlay District does is that it
23 allows the maximum amount of flexibility. That ' s one reason
24 that we chose this site. We feel that the Mixed Use
25 Development area, the PUD, the existing PUD district, and the
67
1 Overlay District, when we looked at it and this site was in
2 all of those areas, we felt that that was the most appropriate
3 site for us to attempt to build this development and it ' s the
4 site that gives you the most flexibility again in your
5 decision-making process .
6 I think that this Overlay District, this Ordinance
7 was made purposely. I think you did it on purpose because
8 there are certain areas in unincorporated Weld County that
9 have these services . And these are exactly the areas that you
10 ought to be looking at true Mixed Use land development.
11 I 'd like to talk now about, you have an Ordinance
12 that states "Intent of the C-3 District" . The intent of the
13 C-3 District is, "To establish and preserve areas for
14 activities which provide goods or services for the benefit of
15 the general public or which require large amounts of space or
16 high traffic volumes . " High traffic is not an issue. That a
17 pre-parole release facility requires large amounts of space is
18 clear and that the building is relatively large . Adequate
19 space for landscape buffering is desirable as shown in our PUD
20 plan application. And this gives you some idea of the
21 buffering that we ' re doing. That the land usage provides
22 services for the benefit of the general public is clear. It
23 was established by statute. All legislative statute concludes
24 with the statement, "The General Assembly hereby finds,
25 determines and declares that this act is necessary for the
68
1 immediate preservation of the public peace, health and
2 safety. " There is a use, did we show, Loren, the hospital?
3 There is a use allowed by right in a C-2 District and then
4 follows into a C-3 District for hospitals, nursing homes and
5 mental or physical rehabilitation centers . Hospital is
6 defined in Ordinance as "Any institution receiving inpatients
7 and rendering medical, surgical, psychiatric or obstetrical
8 care for humans to include general hospitals and specialized
9 institutions . " We are not asserting that the pre-parole
10 release center is a hospital in the classic sense; however,
11 you need to understand and it ' s clear, that the proposed land
12 use, the proposed facility is a specialized institution, that
13 we will render in our normal course of business medical and
14 psychiatric services . As required by the state, nursing staff
15 will be on duty on a daily basis . A physician clinic will be
16 conducted three times per week, and psychiatric services will
17 also be provided as necessary.
18 We are asserting, our position is, that the pre-
19 parole release center is a rehabilitation center as allowed as
20 a Use By Right in your Commercial Ordinances . In absence of
21 a specific definition of rehabilitation, use Webster' s
22 Dictionary its, "To restore or bring to a state of health or
23 useful and purposeful activity as to training or therapy. "
24 That nails our program. That ' s why I spent some time going
25 over our program. That is exactly the purpose of the pre-
69
1 parole release facility. It ' s a correctional facility that
2 provides rehabilitation services, extensive rehabilitation
3 services . Beyond the medical and psychiatric, again, program
4 elements encompass six hours a day. Twenty-six staff are
5 involved. The major purpose and intent of the pre-release
6 center is to provide the rehabilitative program elements
7 directed toward the smooth and safe transition of individuals
8 to supervised release within their own communities .
9 I 'd like to move now to the last, and I think
10 probably the most important topic I 'd like to cover. A very
11 important topic, it ' s in your packet again. It ' s in between
12 the blue pages . I want to provide evidence, extensive
13 evidence really, regarding the effects of correctional
14 facilities on compatibility with adjacent land uses, future
15 development of land uses on adjacent properties, land values
16 of adjacent properties, and community safety. These are
17 really the germane issues that you ' ll be confronted with.
18 These are the issues, I think, that need to be addressed.
19 I 'd first like to briefly go over what ' s called an
20 Information Brief - Issues in Siting Correctional Facilities .
21 This was not put together for our agency. It was put together
22 by the United States Department of Justice, National Institute
23 of Corrections . To go through it briefly, to study and look
24 at how correctional facilities across the country affected
25 their respective communities on the issues that I just talked
70
1 about : property values, public safety, economy, quality of
2 life and law enforcement capabilities . The facilities that
3 were selected for the study, there were seven facilities in
4 four different states . They ranged from minimum security to
5 maximum security. They ranged from county to state to federal
6 facilities . For each facility this study defined a target
7 area and a control area. The target area they defined as a
8 circle of a number of miles that in the center is the
9 correctional facility. The control area is a demographically
10 similar area that does not have a correctional facility in it.
11 And then they looked at all these issues . So it ' s a quasi-
12 scientific, sociological study. When they looked at first,
13 how did the correctional facilities impact public safety, with
14 one exception, the Department of Justice ' s Analysis revealed
15 either, one, there ' s no significant difference in crime rates
16 for the target and control areas, or the crime rate in the
17 target or the prison area is significantly lower than in the
18 control area. The one exception where the crime rate was
19 higher around a prison, they note was for factors other than
20 the presence of that correctional facility. They said that
21 escapes did not pose a significant threat to the personal
22 safety of the residents near the correctional facilities .
23 They talked with law enforcement officers extensively. Not
24 one of the fifteen law enforcement officers interviewed
25 reporting having heard, not only having dealt with, but having
71
1 heard about any crimes committed in the community by the
2 inmates ' visitors . These are not our words . This is a study
3 that was done independently. How about the local economy?
4 Just briefly they have numbers there, but their conclusion is
5 all of the correctional facilities had a positive effect on
6 the local economies . Quality of life. The majority of
7 respondents in their opinion believe the safety of their
8 neighborhood was not adversely affected. Seventy-eight to
9 ninety-four percent believe that their neighborhood' s quality
10 of life had not declined as a result of a development of a
11 correctional institution. What were the perceived impacts of
12 correctional facilities on local law enforcement? It ' s a very
13 important issue, especially in this area that we' re talking
14 about . The fifteen law enforcement officials interviewed
15 showed only positive comments . None of the law enforcement
16 officials interviewed could identify any specific negative
17 consequences of having a correctional facility in their
18 jurisdiction. That ' s one study dealing with seven different
19 communities in four different states , again ranging from
20 minimum to maximum security. You have in your packet in the
21 middle of your packet a number of other examples that I would
22 like to go over quickly please. This is an important issue.
23 You ' ll hear from the opposition very strong
24 opinions, that ' s what they are - opinions, that no business
25 will develop around a prison; our children will not be safe
72
1 when they' re waiting for the bus; my property won't be worth
2 anything; who 'd want to live by a prison; you know,
3 development will not occur; visitors will be committing
4 crimes, etc . These opinions are not based in fact. I ask you
5 Commissioners to demand credibility in statements, in my
6 statements and anyone else ' s statements . I would like you
7 please to not let the strong legitimate expression of opinions
8 go by without asking, at least to yourselves -- it ' s hard to
9 confront someone who ' s really emotional -- but ask at least to
10 yourselves, "How do you know that? What basis in fact do you
11 have to say that your children are in danger or that business
12 won' t develop, etc. ?"
13 Now I want to continue now with further evidence,
14 more local evidence, again on the effects of correctional
15 facilities, compatibility, future development, land value and
16 community safety. The police chief, Chief Michaels in
17 Windsor, contacted four pre-parole release facilities in the
18 State of Texas, privately operated pre-parole release
19 facilities very similar to the one that we ' re talking about in
20 our application. He spoke with each of the city' s police
21 chiefs . The pre-parole facilities have been in operation for
22 three to five years, had had over 15, 000 inmates go through
23 the facilities . Chief Michaels was informed by each of the
24 other chiefs that there had been no escapes, there is no
25 increase in crime in the community, and all the chiefs said
73
1 they had not had any problems associated with the pre-release
2 facilities .
3 Another example is in a research study that was done
4 by Professor Garrison, Ann Garrison, who I hope can be here
5 later this afternoon. She can address this a little bit more
6 in depth. She went into this skeptically. She ' ll tell you
7 this . She was asked to do this by the City of Greeley. She
8 went into it thinking that she would find negative
9 information. What she found was that her research, this is
10 not opinion, her research found property values rose faster in
11 cities with prisons than in cities without prisons . She
12 looked at fourteen communities and it showed that property
13 values and crime rates were not adversely affected by the
14 presence of those correctional institutions . She looked at
15 the specific regions in five different states showing that
16 correctional facilities had no negative impact on population
17 growth or growth of the employment base or future business
18 development. Down in Florence they just built a huge
19 correctional complex -- 2 , 700 to 2 , 900 beds . It' s called a
20 federal correctional institution, FCI . We talked with the
21 developer down there, real estate developer said there' s been
22 no community safety issues . He said compatibility is
23 demonstrated by a significant amount of commercial development
24 that is going up, new development right next to the
25 institution. I talked with a motel owner who is right next to
74
1 the institution who stated he had not had any problems with
2 visitors . His marquis in the front says, "Welcome FCI Federal
3 Correction Institution Visitors . " He says he welcomes that
4 business and has not had problems with those people. The land
5 values have increased. The developer said they have. She
6 showed me a project they have, it ' s called ' Bear Paw' . It ' s
7 a planned retirement residential and golf course community
8 located a half mile north of the federal correctional complex.
9 The Commissioners have had evidence, it ' s in your packets
10 somewhere, that the number of drunk driving and drug-related
11 arrests have risen considerably since the Limon Correctional
12 Facility opened, and the resultant visitor traffic. I
13 wondered about that. I called the police chief, talked with
14 Chief Trahern over in Limon. He stated that in fact his
15 agency has not made a single drunk driving or drug-related
16 arrest on any correctional facility visitors . He went on to
17 say that visitors have not constituted any major safety
18 concerns .
19 I spoke with, pardon me, Howard Anderson is the
20 Mayor Pro-Tem of Ordway. I talked with him, I asked him about
21 the compatibility and other issues of the correctional
22 facility that was located there recently. He stated first
23 that since the Department of Corrections has a 45-minute
24 response time, a lot of good people, staff, have moved into
25 the community and are active in civic affairs . He stated that
75
1 the offenders do a lot of community service work which
2 benefits the city, that land values have not been adversely
3 affected. A quote from Mr. Anderson was "Citizens don't
4 hardly know the prison is there. " It ' s a non-issue. Now
5 Ordway did have infrastructure problems you may have heard
6 about. When the facility went up, their sanitation system
7 could not accommodate the facility, and so they got into a
8 battle with the state on who is going to pay for the
9 enlargement of their infrastructure. That ' s not an issue in
10 our application, fortunately, and that ' s another reason that
11 we chose to site this facility in the area that we 've
12 described.
13 Adams County Detention Facility in Brighton, a huge
14 facility, 288, 000 square foot complex built in ' 85, serves an
15 average daily population of 550 inmates . To the question of
16 what ' s the average length of stay, 13, 000 unclassified inmates
17 every year are booked into that facility. That ' s people
18 who ' ve been arrested from every type of crime from
19 misdemeanors and traffic warrants to the most serious and
20 violent crimes that they may have just committed. In
21 Brighton, an elementary school is located a block from the
22 detention facility. Across the street is a shopping center,
23 an office building complex, and a senior citizen alternative
24 care facility. There' s been no safety or compatibility
25 concerns . I talked with four people in the area. No concerns
76
1 with the businesses or with the school . There are new homes
2 in the $150, 000 range being built within two or three blocks .
3 New development. I spoke with a real estate developer who ' s
4 putting up some of those homes and he says that land values
5 have done nothing but continue to increase.
6 The Boulder County Jail, 103, 000 square feet, 357
7 beds, 110 staff . Again, virtually identical to the size of
8 the facility that we ' re looking at here. The Boulder County
9 Jail was constructed in 1988 . At the same time, a medium
10 density residential development that ' s called Noble Park, it ' s
11 this area right here, was begun. It' s an upscale residential
12 development. It ' s now in its final phase of construction.
13 The developer down there states that the median price of Noble
14 Park homes was $150, 000 in ' 88 and it ' s $230, 000 today.
15 Commercial development, as Ms . Glass mentioned,
16 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: I have a question. When you' re
17 talking about the detention facility there, is it marked pe?
18 MR. BRAND: Yes . The detention facility is right
19 here. And then a block, I say a block right here, is what
20 they called Noble Park.
21 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Okay. Thank you .
22 MR. BRAND: The commercial development that ' s
23 occurring is this area right here. In Brush, they have a
24 facility it ' s a juvenile facility, a tough facility. It' s
25 called the High Plains Detention Center. 175-bed juvenile
77
1 facility dealing with tough kids from around the nation. This
2 is where states send their kids that they can' t handle within
3 their own state. They send them to this facility for
4 treatment and for detention. I spoke with the mayor there.
5 I also spoke with two other members of what they call the High
6 Plains Advisory Board. They all stated that the facility is
7 a positive, non-intrusive land use. Adjacent to the detention
8 center is a manufacturing plant, Morlang Manufacturing. And
9 the Brush School District is right adjacent to the facility.
10 Neither of those developments have any concerns regarding High
11 Plains . Compatibility has not been an issue. Land values
12 have not declined, and community safety has not been an issue,
13 it has not been compromised. Quotes from the mayor, from
14 Mayor Coughlin who also went into this skeptically. When they
15 were proposing this facility, he had all the concerns that the
16 people you ' re going to hear today have on the compatibility
17 and the safety and you know, my God, you know, nobody' s going
18 to develop there, etc. He now says, "High Plains has been
19 nothing but good for Brush. " He' s tickled that people getting
20 out of Brush High School are able to go to work there or go to
21 community college and come back to Brush to their home town
22 and work there, when they didn't have any possibility or as
23 good a possibility of employment in the past . The facility
24 just expanded. It about doubled its size, but the mayor still
25 said most new people in town don't even know the facility is
78
1 there.
2 The Larimer County Jail we talked about, and I
3 appreciate Libby Glass coming over. Again, it ' s a facility
4 exactly the same size as the one that we're talking about.
5 The development of four or five hundred thousand square feet
6 has occurred after the jail was there. Again, it includes a
7 child daycare center. It wasn' t mentioned, but the district
8 offices of the Girl Scouts of America is there. There have
9 been no safety or image concerns resulting from that detention
10 center in proximity to the development and land values have
11 continued to increase.
12 That concludes my presentation and testimony. One,
13 that this land use application is in full compliance with your
14 Comprehensive Plan and with Weld County Zoning Ordinance,
15 allowing this land use within the existing PUD District. And
16 second, I provide and I hope I didn' t overkill it, but I
17 wanted to provide very extensive, factual evidence that,
18 beyond the basic compliance with all the technical
19 requirements this land use, a pre-parole release center, is
20 compatible with other land uses , will not adversely affect
21 land values, and will not constitute any community safety
22 concerns .
23 The independent evidence provided on all those
24 issues were overwhelmingly favorable to the land use
25 consideration in this application. They're not opinions,
79
1 they're facts . Examples given included communities with
2 correctional facilities from minimum to maximum in fourteen
3 different states including Colorado. We provided evidence and
4 statements from police chiefs, from sheriffs, from mayors,
5 from real estate developers, from business owners, and from
6 lay citizens in over 30 communities with correctional
7 institutions . All of the available factual literature and all
8 of the evidence, we did not pick and choose, there were not
9 things that we excluded, there were not bad things that we
10 excluded. All of the available literature is consistent in
11 saying that a correctional facility is a safe and a compatible
12 land use. I ask you to consider this in your decision making
13 process . Thank you and I welcome any questions or comments .
14 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Mr.
15 Brand?
16 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: You touched on this, Mr.
17 Brand, of these pre-parole facilities, to your knowledge, how
18 many of them are there in the United States operating today?
19 MR. BRAND: I asked that question of a guy in
20 Florida and from his information, he said there were 17 . The
21 guy I talked with is with a private foundation and his
22 research had shown 17 . I was not sure if that meant just 17
23 private facilities or 17 total . There is one, a relatively
24 small one, that ' s operated out of Canon City that provides
25 some of the same basic services that are provided here.
80
1 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: Also, how long do you feel
2 they've been operating? How long has their program been in
3 existence?
4 MR. BRAND: Pre-parole, as a concept, is an old
5 concept because it makes sense. You ought to be doing
6 something with people before they get out. What they've been
7 doing up until now is that they've been trying to provide
8 those case management and rehabilitation services within the
9 confines of other, just regular correctional institutions .
10 They've decided now that it ' s better to progress people to a
11 facility that just does pre-parole release as their major
12 function. So the concept is old, the actual separate entities
13 of pre-parole release are relatively new, five to seven years
14 I would estimate.
15 COMMISSIONER HALL: You have a letter in the packet
16 that discusses some of the potential for law enforcement
17 inside the facility. Is there, can you explain a little bit
18 how it would work if someone, if crime was to occur inside?
19 MR. BRAND: Yes sir. Because there are concerns
20 about law enforcement. We share those concerns very much.
21 We 're out in unincorporated Weld County, we 're a distance from
22 the Sheriff ' s Office. There ' s not a lot of Sheriff ' s officers
23 that are assigned to that area. First, we're going to have
24 our own trained security staff . Our staff are trained in
25 security issues and we ' ll be able to detain people. We cannot
81
1 arrest people, but we can detain them and we will handle
2 almost all on-site issues ourselves . That ' s our job and our
3 function as correctional or security officers . The Department
4 of Corrections will have one liaison officer assigned to the
5 facility. That person is a certified Colorado law enforcement
6 agent. All available information shows, and you have
7 information from the Mountain View Fire District that showed
8 the number of emergency calls to facilities in Boulder,
9 Larimer and Weld County. It might be around 21-23 type
10 emergency calls . All of the information I 've seen shows that
11 these facilities do not demand a large number of requests for
12 law enforcement . Sheriff Jordan also reviewed the information
13 and he recognized that fact in his response back saying that
14 he didn' t feel that he'd have an issue with his agency' s
15 ability to respond. So those are the normal situations .
16 Those are somebody breaking into our car out in the parking
17 lot, you know, some issue within the facility that we can
18 contain.
19 Two emergency responses , we ' re talking about now,
20 the unlikely event of an internal disturbance, off-grounds
21 evacuation, chemical truck spills or something other happens .
22 You should be aware that mutual aid agreements and service
23 contracts will be developed between our agency and the Weld
24 County Sheriff ' s Office. They have their own emergency
25 response division, if you will . We ' ll also have an agreement
82
1 with other law enforcement agencies in the area. It ' s a
2 common, they have standing agreements now for services , but
3 they would be specific to our agency. To that end, I spoke
4 with the Longmont Police Department, I spoke with the Greeley
5 Police Department and the Loveland Police Department. All of
6 them have special weapons and tactics teams and they have
7 available officers for emergencies, whether it ' s the guy down
8 at the US Motel who is holed up or whether it ' s a facility
9 such as this, who can and have responded and assisted Weld
10 County. I 'm not unfamiliar with the need to establish
11 comprehensive emergency plans . I 've worked in corrections a
12 long time. You always plan for the worst type of event and
13 hope and anticipate that it never happens . I have no concerns
14 regarding our ability to have adequate law enforcement
15 coverage, both for routine and for emergency situations that
16 may arise at our facility.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Do you have any mutual aid
18 assistance agreements with any of the Denver metro area, like
19 Thornton, Northglenn, Broomfield?
20 MR. BRAND: No. Well, we have not spoken with them
21 at this point. If, when we all get together, when all the
22 significant people who are in this business, who are in the
23 swat team business and all that, first they' ll be involved in
24 our design development stage. We will show them what we ' re
25 going to build so they understand what the facility is and
83
1 what they're getting into both physically and what kind of
2 offenders we have there, how the population' s broken up, etc .
3 If it' s determined that we need more enhanced mutual aid
4 agreements, then I would be directed that way. That would be
5 the next logical way, would be to involve those other
6 agencies, the north metro agencies . But, no, I ' ve not spoken
7 with them.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Is a mutual aid agreement
9 basically a contract for service that you would pay for?
10 MR. BRAND: That ' s correct. First mutual aid
11 recognizes that the Weld County Sheriff ' s Office is the first
12 responding agency. They have the responsibility for
13 unincorporated Weld County. Any mutual aid agreement would
14 have to be developed with the Sheriff and then in turn with
15 us . We would have to contract in our agreement, we 'd have to
16 contract for any services . If we would need any of their
17 services we would pay them on a per-service used basis .
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And I notice also in that
19 letter you said any situation that arised at the pre-parole
20 release facility. What about beyond that facility like two to
21 three mile radius or something?
22 MR. BRAND: You asked the question earlier,
23 Commissioner, and it was a good question. What about our
24 perimeter security. Well, we have people outside the
25 facility. Normal correctional practice and what we would do
84
1 there, we would always have at least one what we call
2 perimeter officer. That person' s job is to be around our
3 parking lot, around the facility, driving around the adjacent
4 neighborhoods, etc . just to see that there ' s nothing related
5 to our facility that ' s going on that we should know. You
6 know, we ' ll have communication equipment where we can
7 communicate with law enforcement, etc. To answer your
8 question specifically, though, we really are not authorized
9 off our property to protect the community two, three, four
10 miles away. That is not our role. If we see something, and
11 our perimeter officer will be in the community, we 're
12 interested in that, we make a call to law enforcement. So
13 we ' re more the eyes and ears and not the, we are not a law
14 enforcement, we are not certifiable as law enforcement
15 officers ourselves .
16 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: You kind of touched on it a
17 little bit, but, would you amplify a little bit how you would
18 handle an emergency, say a fire. For fire protection, if you
19 had a fire in this facility, how would you handle that?
20 MR. BRAND: Okay. First, the building is basically
21 non-combustible. The population is spread into eight
22 different living units . We would have a system whereby when,
23 if we ever had to push 911, on the screen is going to show our
24 floor plan of our building and it' s going to identify where
25 the problem area is . Our fire responding agency is Mountain
85
1 View Fire District. It has a substation two miles down the
2 road. They are first called. They are the people that would
3 be there. We would develop an agreement with the fire
4 district and the Sheriff regarding under what circumstances
5 the fire responding, because they also do ambulance response,
6 would go into the building. Basically, whether it ' s safe or
7 not. Most calls that you see and some information there that
8 was submitted by the Mountain View Fire District in their
9 study of other calls, almost all of them are medical calls .
10 They are ambulance calls . So we would first call 911; 911
11 goes to Mountain View; Mountain View responds . If need be, in
12 fact I think it' s regular procedure that law enforcement
13 responds also. If it ' s a huge enough fire like we have
14 evacuation lanes within the fence where we can confine people.
15 If we have to do an off-grounds evacuation, that ' s part of our
16 comprehensive plan. We 'd have to work with the Department of
17 Corrections and other detention facilities, other county jails
18 to place the offenders in there in case the fire was so bad
19 that, you know, we had to evacuate one pod which would be 58
20 people or what have you. Chief Ward may be able to address
21 some of those issues more in depth if you wish. We also, in
22 terms of emergency response or emergency plan, I don' t know
23 how much depth you want to go in, but we have response squads
24 of our staff. We also will have a 45-minute response time.
25 What we need for a facility of this size is to be able to have
86
1 35 to 40 staff, our security staff responding to the agency
2 within that many minutes, within 30-45 minutes to handle
3 other, you know, situations .
4 There was a question from Commissioner, I think,
5 Kirkmeyer also regarding the, or maybe it was from
6 Commissioner Harbert, I don' t remember. Anyway, regarding the
7 fence and what keeps people from burrowing under it . A couple
8 things . One is , the fence is buried at a depth to be
9 determined by, you know, how deep we think it has to be. Next
10 to the fence you can place either real rough gravel type
11 things or black top or concrete, something that goes out about
12 this far so if someone is going to go under the fence, first
13 we have our perimeter security and we have our yard staff, but
14 to go under the fence, they'd don' t have to go this far, they
15 have to go that far under something that they can' t dig under.
16 That ' s how it works in the security sense.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: What ' s to prohibit people
18 from throwing things over the fence?
19 MR. BRAND: That ' s one reason that we have two
20 fences . We have the 8-foot fence inside. Nothing' s to
21 prohibit them. I mean, except it takes a pretty good arm. It
22 also takes a pretty good astuteness on our part to know what ' s
23 coming into the yard. Whenever somebody is in the yard, we ' re
24 going to have at lease two officers out there. Could it
25 happen? Certainly it could. Contraband' s an issue.
87
1 Contraband, gosh, they got it up some, you know, pipes or
2 something here in the county jail . So anyway, it is an issue
3 certainly and, you know, regular, you know, searches and
4 things like that are a routine part of running a correctional
5 facility, too. Also regular drug testing. That ' s the most
6 common thing they want in is drugs .
7 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Any other questions?
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: About your rehabilitation
9 program. The maximum stay is 180 days, is the minimum stay 30
10 days?
11 MR. BRAND: There is no minimum stay defined by the
12 Department of Corrections at this point. We will need, in our
13 contract with the state, to deal with that issue . The problem
14 is it takes a lot of work to get a person in one day, do the
15 intake and do all the assessments and then they take them out
16 two or three days later. That would defeat the purpose of the
17 program. So, we want in our contract with the state, some
18 defined, you know, limit on the minimum stay. I think that' s
19 important. Otherwise, we can't do anything with people in two
20 or three days . So, but there is nothing defined. That will
21 be part of our contractual agreement with the Department .
22 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: What do you feel , for your
23 benefit, and rehabilitating someone would be a minimum amount
24 of time that they should stay there? Would it be 30 days?
25 Can you do anything with anybody in 30 days?
88
1 MR. BRAND: In 30 days we can at least deal with the
2 practical considerations of release. Understand first, that
3 people who are coming there have already been paroled.
4 They've seen the parole board and to get paroled they have to
5 have what they call a parole plan. They have to have a place
6 to go, a place to live. We would help investigate that. We
7 would determine it as a true parole plan, a true address, all
8 that . We can deal with some of the issues, but what we 'd be
9 doing there basically would be assessing and referring back to
10 the community. They would not be able to go through our
11 program. Our program is open-ended. Someone can enter it at
12 any time. It ' s not like 90 day increments . To answer your
13 questions, I would say that we can deal with the practical
14 considerations, transport the people in, then transport them
15 back to their parole officers 30 days later at least with
16 their feet on the ground, but not to have had the benefit of
17 the entire program.
18 CHAIRMAN KIRKMEYER: So what you're saying is that
19 it would be up to the state to determine the minimum stay?
20 MR. BRAND: That would be up to us and the state in
21 negotiating our contract agreement. The state also does not
22 want people there for a short period of time. It ' s expensive
23 for them to transfer and transport people, like from
24 Arrowhead, or you know, somewhere over the mountains or Buena
25 Vista to any facility to have them then later get out two or
89
1 three days hence. But that ' s something that we would
2 negotiate with the state. Mr. Waters is here. He may address
3 that issue from the Department ' s perspective if you so desire.
4 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Would Mr. Waters come forward,
5 please. Is Mr. Waters here? Would you state your name and
6 address for the record please .
7 MR. WATERS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is
8 Tom Waters, P.O. Box 1010, Canon City, Colorado. I am the
9 administrative officer and attorney with the Colorado
10 Department of Corrections and I 'm here to address any
11 questions you might have concerning the Department of
12 Corrections ' relationship or proposed relationship with The
13 Villa for the use of the proposed facility.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I 'd like to know how open
15 you are to negotiating a 30-day minimum stay.
16 MR. WATERS: I don' t believe we'd be negotiable
17 towards that. I think we are looking more at a 90-day minimum
18 stay for pre-parole offenders .
19 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Would you address, I know it ' s
20 been asked, and i KNOW it ' s on some people ' s minds, the
21 possible reclassification for crowding reasons or whatever, in
22 a state somewhere else and then sending them, reclassifying
23 them down or whatever BECAUSE OF space needs TO a pre-parole
24 center.
25 MR. WATERS: So, if I understand your question
90
1 correctly, solely for the purpose of creating greater bed
2 space, utilizing a pre-parole facility? Let me talk briefly
3 if I can, about the classification system. The classification
4 system is based on certain objective criteria. For instance,
5 such things as the, I 'm sorry if you can' t hear me. Is this
6 better? Some of the factors which are included in the
7 classification of inmates and offenders would be the nature of
8 their offense, the length of their sentence, prior criminal
9 history, and perhaps and very importantly would be their
10 institutional disciplinary conduct. Whether or not they'd
11 been convicted of a disciplinary offense within the facility.
12 And Mr. Baxter, I certainly do not believe that there would be
13 reclassification made of offenders solely for the purpose of
14 placing them within the pre-parole facility. The Department
15 of Corrections ' intent and THE use of this facility is
16 specifically to prepare offenders for community reintegration.
17 In other words, to prepare potential parolees for moving back
18 into their respective communities and I certainly do not
19 believe this facility would be simply used as idle bed space
20 to make greater room somewhere else. Sir.
21 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: To your knowledge, how
22 successful do you feel that this program has been, that you 've
23 heard about? What ' s the betterment of saying fewer
24 turnarounds coming back because of this pre-parole type of
25 program?
91
1 MR. WATERS : Well , I can' t speak specifically about
2 a pre-parole facility.
3 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: I understand that. But just
4 in your position what have you heard?
5 MR. WATERS : I would say, I can reason analogously
6 from other programs that we do have. Our standard re-
7 offending rate, recidivous rate is in the mid-30% range. In
8 situations where we can specifically pay attention to
9 offenders and work with them as far as community
10 reintegration, those numbers tend to drop down to the mid-
11 teens . So, for instance, we have a relationship with a Denver
12 organization called Friends in Transition. And when the
13 Friends in Transition volunteers work with our offenders the
14 usual re-offending rate amongst those individuals, amongst
15 those offenders is about 14%, so it drops considerably.
16 Reasoning from that, I would estimate, I would speculate
17 rather reasonably I think, that this program would have
18 similar numbers . Certainly that would be our goal .
19 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any other questions for
21 Mr. Waters?
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Could the state at any
23 point change, earlier they said this is a level 2 facility,
24 could the state at any point change from a level 2 to a
25 different type of level 2 or level facility?
92
1 MR. WATERS : No, and there ' s two reasons for that.
2 That could not happen. One is the great impracticality of
3 doing that . We ' re building a level 2, a minimum restricted
4 facility. To upgrade that to a higher security or higher
5 custody classification would be very cost prohibitive. If I
6 can analogize, it would be like building a ranch house and
7 then trying to convert it into a multi-family apartment
8 building. It would be very difficult to do. The second
9 reason we would not do that, is it would be outside the
10 purview of House Bill 1327 , the enabling legislation which has
11 authorized us to operate or contract for the operation of a
12 pre-parole facility at this security level . So we would not
13 be doing that. We have no plans to do that.
14 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: But you could, you think you
15 would not.
16 MR. WATERS : I think as you well know, the state
17 ultimately, through legislative process could do whatever it
18 wanted with the facility, particularly one of its own
19 facilities . The operators of such a facility, though, would
20 never have to agree to that. And again I want to strongly
21 emphasize, however, that within the police powers of the state
22 there is a lot the state can do. But we have no anticipation
23 of doing anything like that. That ' s not, we don't have the
24 need for that type of facility right now. We have a need for
25 the type of facility that The Villa is proposing.
93
1 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Any further questions? Thank you
2 Mr. Waters .
3 MR. COPPOM: John Coppom again. If I may, I 'd like
4 to just add to that question. Can the facility be upgraded to
5 a Class 3, 4 or 5 facility? Loren Bley has already said we'd
6 have to tear down the walls and re-build them bunker style to
7 upgrade those walls . But there really is an answer to that
8 that' s just has to do with something that in my opinion is
9 insurmountable. The facility will be built under bonds . The
10 people who invest into those bonds have a good number of
11 requirements for us to obtain those bonds . One of those
12 requirements is obviously that we have to have the place
13 insured and an insurance company will only insure it for a
14 minimum risk facility. If we bring in higher risk offenders,
15 they will not continue to insure it and we won' t have our
16 program.
17 Secondly, the bond people themselves are saying that
18 we, you have to have a professional criminal justice agency
19 oversight your facility that ' s tied into other prison
20 administration experts . And we ' re going to come in every year
21 and we ' re going to monitor how you ' re running the facility and
22 whether or not you ' re meeting the compliance regulations of
23 the bonds which is minimum risk. If you' re violating those,
24 they' re going to force us back into a minimum risk facility.
25 We would not violate that.
94
1 I might also say that the bond people are requiring
2 us to put, to bank, $800, 000 so that if for any reason this
3 facility would, I mean the state would change its policies or
4 whatever and we needed to change the facility, that $800, 000
5 would carry the facility for the investors for a period of 6
6 months so that we could make those changes and those would be
7 done through the professional criminal justice agency that
8 that bond company has contracted with. So we have a lot of
9 safeguards within the way that we insure it and the way in
10 which we fund it that guarantees that it stays minimum risk.
11 With that, our next speaker is Ron Hiatt.
12 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Would it be all right if we took
13 a break? We will return at 3 : 30 .
14 (A short break was taken) .
15 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: We will resume the applicant ' s
16 proposal presentation. John, did you have another speaker?
17 MR. COPPOM: Yes . Ron Hiatt and then he would be
18 followed by Ann Garrison if she ' s here and that would conclude
19 our presentation.
20 MR. HIATT: Thank you. My name is Ronald L. Hiatt .
21 My wife and I reside at 1405 Willow Drive, Berthoud, Colorado.
22 I am the general manager, property manager of the Del Camino
23 Service Plaza and Truck Wash, Treasurer of the St. Vrain
24 Sanitation District, a partner in a Super 8 Motel at Del
25 Camino, a partner in Del Camino Recreation, a proposed 77-acre
95
1 paved recreation and RV park area. Our family has purchased
2 and re-sold two businesses to other businesses in the Del
3 Camino area in the last five years . Plus, we have lived in
4 the Del Camino area for four of the past seven years that we
5 have lived in Colorado. Our son, Rick, currently resides at
6 3598 Highway 119 , Del Camino, owner of the Woods and Waters
7 Sporting Goods Store and is a partner in the Del Camino
8 Recreation. My brother, Dennis and his wife Jackie, are
9 managing partners of the Super 8 Motel . They reside in an
10 apartment at the motel and have done so since May 1, 1986 .
11 I tell you these facts because the Hiatt families
12 are committed to the well-being of the residents and the
13 business environment of the Del Camino area . The safety of
14 all the people that pass through or live in the Del Camino
15 area is our utmost concern. It is because of these
16 commitments that I started my own investigation in respect to
17 the proposed pre-release facility. My investigation took me
18 to the cities of Lincoln, Nebraska, home of Nebraska ' s largest
19 penal complex; Pueblo, Colorado; Delta and Canon City, all
20 with their own prison facilities . Traveling at my own
21 expense, asking questions of my own accord, talking to
22 citizens, political leaders, professional people, blue collar
23 employees and businessmen and women. I present the following
24 information.
25 I asked several questions of each person I
96
1 interviewed and today I share just a few of those questions
2 with you. Question: Should the prison in your town be
3 closed? The overwhelming response was no. Question: What
4 economic impact does the prison have on your community?
5 Answers, some of them: Jobs, creation of wealth, increase of
6 my sales, the largest percent of our business comes from the
7 prison, and they go on and on. All participants, all
8 participants answering my survey question agreed that their
9 communities and themselves were financially better off with
10 respective facilities located in our cities . Question: Has
11 real estate values decreased because of the incarceration or
12 the prison facility in your community? In Delta, a real
13 estate agent said values and I quote him, "Values in Delta and
14 the communities around us have been rising for the past four
15 years . We are now experiencing the Californians" (and I think
16 all of us on the front range know what the Californians refer
17 to) "and the retirement-age people moving to our community and
18 building permits are on the increase. " In Pueblo and Canon
19 City, not as good a picture, real estate values are somewhat
20 static, but the feeling of the respondents was without the
21 prisons the real estate market would be a lot worse in those
22 two communities .
23 The most profound increases in real estate values
24 are in Lincoln, Nebraska. Within two miles where my son lives
25 and within the two-mile radius of the State Prison, a 5%
97
1 increase annually for the past four years was the figure most
2 quoted. Development within that two miles of the Nebraska
3 State Penitentiary is comprised of a new, major shopping
4 center, fast-food restaurants, commercial office parks,
5 churches, new single and multi-family housing developments,
6 one of Nebraska ' s largest high-tech companies, Information
7 Technology Inc . where my son is employed, broke ground this
8 Fall for their second 8-story office complex. This building
9 is projected to house 150 employees . From the office windows
10 of both buildings, they will be able to view the Nebraska
11 State Pen, in about a mile area of that particular area. This
12 building is projected to bring 150 employees, bringing ITI ' s
13 employment to 325 . Their first and second buildings are
14 within that two miles of the state prison and have been for
15 over 10 years on building number one. Ladies and gentlemen,
16 I don' t believe the owners of McDonald' s, Hardees, clothing
17 stores, a new miniature golf course, Information Technology,
18 and new homeowners around the Nebraska prison would be putting
19 their capital or their lives at risk if having a prison is
20 such a bad neighbor.
21 I now ask you to focus with me on the St. Vrain
22 Sanitation District. Earlier described by Mr. Nelson and
23 others, the County Commissioners, in the mid-1980 ' s foresaw a
24 great deal of growth coming through the Del Camino area. One
25 consulting firm in Longmont estimated there would be 20, 000
98
1 people living within a five-mile radius of Del Camino by the
2 year 2000 . We ' re far from that . So, based upon this
3 information, the Comprehensive Plan approved the area as
4 commercial in nature and with the wisdom of a few developers,
5 St . Vrain Sanitation District was born, presented to the
6 County Commissioners and approved, planned, funded 4 million
7 dollars worth of bonds, and built. Economic stagnation set in
8 just as the sanitation district came on line and stagnation in
9 Del Camino remains today. After refinancing $4 , 500, 000 in
10 bonds in 1991, $500,000 of additional debt, not for expansion
11 but to try and remain at a low mill levy so we could encourage
12 development, we now find the mill levy at 29 . 99% going up
13 every year. That ' s 29 . 99 mills that we paid last year. St.
14 Vrain Sanitation District mill levy in 1986 , when it was
15 approved and funded by bonding, was 12 . 5 mills . The mill levy
16 increased to 19 . 99 in 1992 . St. Vrain mill levy increased to
17 29 . 99 and tomorrow morning the St. Vrain Sanitation District
18 Board of Directors is certifying a mill levy of 34 . 99 or a
19 66 . 66% increase in the past two years . Without development to
20 pay the bonded debt, the mill levy of 39 . 99 is expected in
21 1995 . I might add here, next year, 1994 , will be our first
22 $25,000 principal reduction for the St. Vrain Sanitation
23 District, one of many to increase on an annual basis . So I
24 think you can see what may happen to the mill levy. You may
25 even want to withdraw your application after that. In real
99
1 dollars, what does that mean to the Super 8 Motel where I 'm a
2 partner? Sewer tax has risen from $4 ,276 to next year $7, 005 .
3 One business, $2 , 729 increase. I have four businesses over
4 there that I 'm responsible, I don' t own four businesses, I
5 have four businesses that I am responsible for making sure
6 that those taxes are paid, people.
7 As Treasurer for the St. Vrain Sanitation District,
8 I ask that you approve the building of this pre-release
9 facility in the Del Camino or in the St . Vrain Sanitation
10 District. It has been said in testimony before the Planning
11 Commission by one of the opponents to the pre-release facility
12 being built at Del Camino, and I quote, "Not even the business
13 community of Del Camino supports the building of the proposed
14 pre-release facility. Whomever testified before the Planning
15 Commission, and I don't know that person, but you don ' t have
16 your facts straight. I am sorry. I went out Friday,
17 Saturday, Sunday and Monday of this week to find out if there
18 were basis to that statement. In your packets I have
19 furnished you, the County Commissioners, two pages of
20 signatures belonging to business owners and/or managers in the
21 Del Camino area and out of 23 business owners or managers that
22 I talked to personally, three would not sign this petition and
23 two were out of state. As you can see by their signatures,
24 the Del Camino business community does, indeed, support the
25 building of this facility.
100
1 In conclusion, if I believed that by supporting the
2 building of the Del Camino pre-release facility, public
3 safety, real estate values or invested capital would be in
4 jeopardy, I would not be supporting this project. However, my
5 beliefs and my convictions are substantiated by the research
6 conducted by my own self and shared with you today. I and 18
7 other business people in the Del Camino area, respectably ask
8 that each of you vote to approve the building of the Del
9 Camino pre-release facility. With that, I thank you for
10 voting yes .
11 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Mr.
12 Hiatt?
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: When you say as Treasurer
14 for the St. Vrain Sanitation District, are you acting as a
15 representative for the District and speaking for all the
16 members of the District, or is that just your own opinion?
17 MR. HIATT: That is myself speaking only and not a
18 representative of the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you.
20 MS . HARBERT: Are there any other questions? Thank
21 you, Mr. Hiatt.
22 MR. COPPOM: Is Ann Garrison in the room, please?
23 That would conclude our presentation. I 'm going to wait until
24 the very end to give any type of summary or comments, mostly
25 to expedite time. But I would ask that if Ann Garrison comes
101
1 in that she be allowed to present her research. Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: All right, we will agree to that.
3 Are there any questions of Mr. Coppom before we stat public
4 testimony? Okay. As I mentioned earlier, that we will take
5 testimony from those who are in favor of this first, of the
6 proposal first, and I have to get these straightened out
7 first, just a minute.
8 I will call two names . The first name will come to
9 the microphone, the second name will you please seat yourself
10 on the corner right here so that you will be ready to testify
11 next so we don' t waste time waiting for people to come clear
12 across the room. When you testify, will you please state your
13 name and address for the record. You do need to speak into
14 the microphone clearly as this is a recorded hearing and we do
15 need everything on tape. The first two speakers will be Joe
16 Tennesson and Dennis Kane. So, Joe, if you would come to the
17 microphone and Dennis if you would come and sit in the first
18 seat here. Okay, you ' re already there. All right, thank you .
19 He' s quick.
20 MR. TENNESSON: My name is Joe Tennesson. I live at
21 1520 13th Avenue, Greeley. I am also one of the owners of
22 radio station KFKA. I think the one thing that all of us in
23 this room have in common is that we are very proud of the
24 place that we live. I think many of us have worked extremely
25 hard to make certain that we build and maintain a really
102
1 exceptional place for ourselves and for our families and for
2 future generations . And whether you happen to be in favor or
3 opposed to this, I think you probably have that same sort of
4 feeling. And I think if we take that a step further, we can
5 say that we all want those things that are best for our
6 community. And we generally have determined that those
7 include some good jobs , some opportunities for us to earn a
8 good living or to provide jobs for our children so that they
9 can continue to live in this community. I think it ' s critical
10 that we maintain good government through a good, solid tax
11 base and through the development of new businesses so that
12 that base can constantly be enhanced. On the other hand, I
13 think none of us want to do anything that would hurt our
14 community, either in terms of the destruction of the
15 environment through industries that pollute our air or our
16 soil, or do anything that damage the safety of those of us who
17 live here or those that we love.
18 Therefore, I 'd like to make three brief points as to
19 why I favor this proposal . And I might say that I have spoken
20 in favor of this publicly, not in an hearing such as this, but
21 over the air at all of the locations where this has previously
22 been proposed. During those hearings, we heard very extensive
23 presentations about the economic impact. Ann Garrison, in the
24 Greeley presentation, made some extremely detailed notes about
25 the kind of positive impact that this would have in our
103
1 community, starting out with the construction jobs that would
2 build this facility to begin with. Secondly, we have heard
3 time and again the safeguards that are in place to keep even
4 this minimum security kind of facility from presenting the
5 possibility that people who would be dangerous would be simply
6 turned loose on our community.
7 Point number 2 . I think in all things that we do,
8 we look to the people who are doing them, and I believe that
9 all of us who live in this great western heritage recognize
10 the fact that people who you have come to trust in the past
11 you will be able to trust in the future. These are the people
12 who have done what they said they would do before and they
13 will do it again. We know that. The folks who are attempting
14 to build this facility have an outstanding reputation. They
15 have a great reputation in our community and in those
16 surrounding it. They have done what they have said they would
17 do. Their business dealings have been honest, they are
18 forthright people, the kinds of folks who have made great
19 contributions to our community.
20 At previous presentations and, obviously we haven' t
21 come to that point here, the people who have been opposed to
22 this facility generally do so on the basis of their fear of
23 some of the things that might happen. In some cases there is
24 a fear that the reputation of the neighborhood will change or
25 that the value of the housing will go down. In other cases
104
1 people presented their fears that individuals being released
2 by these facilities might cause bodily harm. But in every
3 case we were dealing not nearly as much with fact as we were
4 with fears . And I can tell you that those are very real and
5 people who express those fears are doing so not because they
6 want to be trouble-makers, but because they really do have
7 those fears . Unfortunately, in the world that we live in
8 today, we are constantly barraged by the media and by people
9 trying to sell us things about the things that might happen to
10 us . But it has been my own personal belief, and it has become
11 a part of my personal value system, that we generally are much
12 more fearful than we need be, and that most of the things that
13 we fear have absolutely no basis in reality. And because of
14 this, because the people who have a feeling against this
15 facility have generally spoken in terms of fear rather than in
16 terms of real facts that we can base a decision on, I have
17 become firmly convinced that this is something that would be
18 positive for our community.
19 I know that I, and I feel quite certain the people
20 who are wanting to build this , will be happy to live with
21 whatever your decision is . But I ' ve got a sign hanging on my
22 wall that I look at on a very regular basis that says, "Fear
23 is that little dark room where negatives are developed. " I
24 would ask only of you that you make a decision based on fact
25 and not on fear. Thank you very much.
105
1 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Our next speaker will be Dennis
2 Kane and would J.V. Teague come forth please. You' ll be the
3 next speaker.
4 MR. KANE : Thank you Commissioners . I am Councilman
5 Dennis Kane from Windsor. I was asked by Michael Brand today
6 to come over here and testify as to what exactly went on in
7 Windsor in regards to the pre-parole facility and our
8 experience with them.
9 In late February, early March of this year, The
10 Villa came to Windsor and made a presentation on the pre-
11 parole facility and what it would do for Windsor. After the
12 town board meeting was over, the council discussed this to see
13 if there was interest in pursuing this . There was interest on
14 the council . The mayor, Tom Jones, appointed me the chairman
15 of the pre-parole committee. The committee was an ad hoc
16 committee put together just for this one purpose, to see if
17 this would be a good idea or a bad idea for Windsor. The
18 committee consisted of three councilmen, the mayor, the acting
19 town administrator, and the police chief . Now, a lot of what
20 we found out, Mike went over in his presentation. We first
21 met and our key concern was that of the safety of the citizens
22 of Windsor. What was the risk to them? The second concern
23 was the location of this . The third, of course, was
24 infrastructure, do we have enough of that to take care of
25 this . And, of course, the overall economic impact. We
106
1 divided those different areas up amongst ourselves and agreed
2 to come back and meet again in a week and determine whether we
3 should proceed as a committee or disband.
4 There was so much positive information that we had
5 gathered, both empirically and non-empirically, that we
6 decided that we would continue this and that we would go on
7 further to answer the rest of our questions . As Michael
8 pointed out, John Michaels, Chief of Police John Michaels, had
9 contacted a number of these facilities, not only in Texas, but
10 also in Kentucky and out in California. The ones that were
11 most like what is proposed here were in Texas . They are
12 privately run pre-parole facilities . Mike pointed out that
13 there were no problems here, what he did not point out is two
14 of these towns wanted to double the size of their facilities .
15 Originally when this was being proposed, it was almost as
16 though it was a civil war all over again; brother against
17 brother, father against son, on whether this should go in or
18 not. After the facilities were put up and after those fears
19 were abated and they found out that there was not an increase
20 in crime, in fact our research showed in every case that we
21 looked at, that crime either stayed the same or actually went
22 down. The reason for it going down, there ' s a perception that
23 if there is a facility in here, a correctional institution in
24 this city, the perception is that there ' s more law enforcement
25 officers out there so we 're not going to mess around in this
107
1 town and we ' ll go to the next town and rob that 7-11 . So the
2 crime actually went down in most of the communities that these
3 facilities were in. And like I said, we didn't find a single
4 town where it went up. The same thing with property values .
5 There was an exception to that. I believe it was in
6 Washington State, Wallawalla where the property values
7 dropped, but in every other case that we looked at the
8 property values either remained the same or went up.
9 One thing I want to point out to the Commissioners
10 today. There is a rumor that the Town Board voted down the
11 pre-parole facility. I 'm here to tell you the fact is the
12 Town Board did not vote down the pre-parole facility. What
13 happened after we gathered our information, and we were not
14 convinced at this point as a committee to recommend to the
15 Town either yea or nay on this . We still had more
16 investigation to do, answer some of the questions that Barb
17 had asked earlier, you know, what if the state comes in and
18 tries to change the classification. You know, we still had
19 those questions to answer. Also, the sewer system. We had
20 those questions to answer. We never got to that point because
21 what was decided that would happen is that The Villa would
22 come back, make another presentation and then after this
23 presentation there would be a public hearing. They did that,
24 there was a public hearing and John asked for a show of hands
25 from the audience out there of who was in favor and who was
108
1 opposed to this . I would estimate that there were probably
2 about 80% of the people in the audience that were opposed to
3 it . And the feeling at that point was, well if there ' s that
4 much opposition there ' s really no need to go further. One of
5 the things to point out is there were a large number, and I
6 can ' t put a percentage of it, of people in the audience that
7 were not from Windsor. I think that 's important to know.
8 Second of all, on a private poll that I took which
9 is not scientific, simply coffee room talk, talking to my
10 constituents and having people come up to me and ask me
11 questions about this, there were 18 people that were in favor
12 of the facility, 23 opposed to it and 9 of them that wanted
13 more information. So, it was a lot different than what we saw
14 at the public hearing. I cannot honestly tell you where
15 anybody on the Windsor Town Board sat as far as if it had come
16 there, would they have voted yea or nay. I don' t know. If
17 the wastewater facility, if that would have been corrected,
18 currently we have to upgrade our wastewater plant right now in
19 Windsor. And we ' re looking at $3-4 million dollars of getting
20 that done. How much of an impact this would have had, we
21 don' t know. We never got that far. But if that would have
22 been positive, if we felt comfortable in the state not coming
23 back in and either taking it over or reclassifying it, if we
24 felt comfortable, if I felt comfortable there and if the
25 location I felt comfortable with that, I 'd have to say that I
109
1 would definitely have voted for it because of all the
2 information that we got, it was overwhelmingly positive, both
3 from a safety aspect of it and also from the economic
4 standpoint . So that pretty much concludes what I have to say.
5 If anybody has any questions, I 'd be more than willing to
6 answer them.
7 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Any questions for Mr. Kane? Mr.
8 Teague and then Vickie Hays .
9 MR. TEAGUE: Thank you. I 'm J.V. Teague. I reside
10 at 1707 26th Avenue Court in Greeley. And I would like to
11 speak in favor of the proposal that ' s being presented today.
12 Specifically, I would like to address the issue of
13 the quality of the group that ' s making the proposal . And
14 first of all I would ask the question and answer it -- how do
15 I know these people? I 'm associated with Lowell-Paul Dairy
16 and we are a supplier of dairy products for The Villa. In
17 addition, we have, we don't at this particular point in time,
18 but we have on occasions had some people from The Villa who
19 worked with us . Am I coming through or am I addressing this
20 thing? Who have worked with us on a release program or a
21 work-release program. I 'm getting confused with what we 're
22 talking about today. From both of these standpoints, I 'd like
23 to say one other thing before I go on to that. I am not
24 speaking at anybody' s request. I am here on my own voluntary
25 effort and I 'm not here because I was requested or any
110
1 pressure was put on me or anything of that nature.
2 From both directions that I mentioned, I have found
3 The Villa to be a real first-class organization, an
4 organization that is being run in a very professional manner
5 and a group that has just been a real privilege to work with.
6 And that ' s my motivation for being here today.
7 I do have a little knowledge for having worked with
8 them as a supplier of dairy products, of their food service
9 organization, certainly more so than I do the other aspects .
10 And let me assure you that the people that work in this food
11 service organization are good, they are professional and they
12 do a good job. I don't know how much of an expert, but I 've
13 seen it go in both ways and I do think I know the difference
14 between one that ' s run right and one that ' s run not. Now, I 'd
15 be the first to say that the people that are concerned about
16 the pre-release facility are not real concerned whether or not
17 they can run a cafeteria or a restaurant, but I think that ' s
18 just an example of what they can do.
19 To address the issue of the relationship we ' ve had
20 where we 've had people working on a work-release program,
21 again I found that they did an excellent job. They have a
22 good program, they carried out a good program with these
23 people, and they kept on top of it. In our facility we don' t
24 work shift work as such to where everybody works from seven to
25 three or eight to four and our ending times is frequently when
111
1 we get through and not because the clock reaches some point.
2 The people that were on work-release did not always get back
3 at exactly the time that they were expected to. When that did
4 not happen, we got a telephone call . They were on top of it
5 and as long as they were still working there, or they had just
6 left and hadn't had time to get there, then everything was
7 okay. But they knew when the people were not doing what they
8 were supposed to be doing. And they exercised the keeping
9 right on top of it. I think they also did a good job there.
10 One other issue I 'd like to address to the people
11 that are opposed to this thing. When The Villa was first
12 proposed for Greeley, I 'm going to confess, I had some
13 reservations . First of all, I wasn't sure I wanted it in
14 Greeley. And I felt, "Well now isn' t this about a heck of a
15 place to put this kind of a facility" and I say that in quote
16 because this kind wasn't what I thought it was either. But
17 right there on the campus of the University of Northern
18 Colorado. Let me say that through the years this facility has
19 been there, all of these concerns that I had have been erased
20 and they've been a very positive part of this community, and
21 including the location at the University that I was referring
22 to .
23 Commissioners, I urge you to lend your support to
24 this program. I feel it will be a fine addition to our
25 county, to our State of Colorado, and something that we will
112
1 all be proud of once it gets going and we get over the start-
2 up concerns and the start-up issues and so forth. Thank you,
3 and could I answer any questions?
4 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Any questions for Mr. Teague?
5 Thank you very much.
6 MR. TEAGUE: Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Vickie Hays is our next speaker
8 and then Bill Meier.
9 MR. BARKER: Madam Chairman I might make a
10 suggestion that you may want to caution the audience that the
11 comments should be made to you as a board and no comments
12 should be directed to the audience itself.
13 MS . HAYS: My name is Vickie Hays and I have been
14 working in corrections for several years . Part of my
15 experience is in Wyoming I worked for the state hospital in
16 the forensics and substance abuse unit and for about two and
17 a half years . I have worked with a wide variety of offenders
18 from homicide to possession of contraband or drugs . And so I
19 have seen the wide range of offenders that these people are
20 afraid of . Never once have I felt fear toward any of these
21 offenders . Instead what I have learned is that most of them
22 are normal, everyday people. Some of them come from broken
23 homes, others from normal everyday families, and some of them
24 from very affluent families . The thing that I 've learned is
25 that most of them at one point in their life, had made a wrong
113
1 choice and somehow ended up in the system. That does not make
2 them bad people. They are not just a bunch of terrible,
3 dangerous people waiting to prey on their next victim. When
4 I lived in Evanston, you know, I felt the same fear that a lot
5 of these people are fearing for the state hospital because my
6 opinion was it was a place for the criminally insane and
7 according to the media and television shows and things that I
8 heard from the community that they were just a bunch of
9 walking, mean, terrible zombies around there in straight
10 jackets and constantly beating up on the people that worked
11 there. When I went to work there I discovered it was totally
12 different. There were a lot of people there that were having
13 problems and that were just working their way back into
14 society and getting straightened out .
15 I think people are afraid of what they don' t know,
16 and I think that ' s what this whole thing boils down to. And
17 it ' s only until you give yourself a chance or opportunity to
18 become more familiar with their correctional facility and
19 offenders will your fears be quelled. I took the chance to
20 overcome that fear many years ago and I 'm still working in
21 corrections right now and I would never turn back and never go
22 in a different direction because this is a career that I plan
23 to stick with and I feel it ' s very worth while to consider
24 this pre-parole facility because we do need to do something to
25 change the system to where we ' re not getting overcrowded
114
1 anymore. Thank you. Any questions?
2 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Ms .
3 Hays? Thank you. Bill Meier is our next speaker and then we
4 have Joe Cox.
5 MR. MEIER: Madam Chairman, members of the Board of
6 County Commissioners, my name is Bill Meier. I 'm a resident
7 of unincorporated Weld County. I reside at 14181 Weld County
8 Road 2 . I 'm here today on behalf of Southwest Weld Economic
9 Development Group. As chairman of the group, I have served
10 for the last four years . This group has been in existence for
11 approximately eight years . It represents the businesses, land
12 owners, utilities, real estate people in the Del Camino, Mead,
13 Tri-Area along I-25 . The purpose of our group is to promote
14 and facilitate the development of an economically viable mixed
15 use corridor along I-25 and it is in that regard today that
16 I 'm here to ask you to vote in favor of this pre-release
17 facility. Our group feels that it ' s an economically positive
18 addition to the area and we have a number of reasons why we
19 feel that way.
20 The primary reason is because of jobs . We all work
21 very hard through either EDAL, the Economic Development
22 Association of Longmont, or EDAP, the partnership, the
23 Economic Development Association Partnership in Greeley. And
24 the top priority of both those organizations and of any
25 economic development group, is jobs . We have an opportunity
115
1 here to bring up to 110 jobs that will pay between $15, 060 to
2 $65, 000 per year per employee. This is an opportunity that
3 hasn't come along in a long time in this area. I 've heard
4 over and over that if we 'd just wait our turn there would be
5 so much coming this way that we can afford to be very choosy.
6 And my point to you is that the opportunity before us today is
7 a choice opportunity. It ' s a good company, it will be well
8 managed, and in that regard I took it upon myself to visit The
9 Villa at Greeley, Inc . and I have toured it and I understand
10 the administrative relationship between the State of Colorado
11 and the Department of Corrections . I was interested in
12 finding that out for myself on behalf of Southwest Weld Group
13 and I stand before you with confidence that once the facility
14 is built that it will be well run, well managed and that the
15 State of Colorado will be well served.
16 We believe that the facility is compatible and
17 consistent with zoning and planning in the area. We believe
18 it will be complimentary to the existing services . It won ' t
19 require much new infrastructure, no roads, no sewer, a little
20 bit of a water line, electricity is already nearby. It will
21 have a very low impact initially in being set forth. As it
22 operates, we believe it will be a very non-pretentious
23 operation. In other words, it ' s non-polluting, it ' s quiet,
24 it ' s non-environmentally hazardous, it will operate almost
25 unnoticed by the community and I believe by visitors to
116
1 Barbour State Ponds and to people who come off I-25 and use
2 the services at Del Camino Plaza. It will probably, in fact,
3 be unnoticed. On the other hand, if you do notice it, we
4 believe it will be an attractive, architecturally appealing
5 building to the area, a building such that would attract other
6 businesses . It ' s not a rag-tag tin shed; it ' s a multi-million
7 dollar investment and it will enhance the appearance of the
8 area. We further believe that it ' s the right type of business
9 for that location. There won' t be a lot of traffic created by
10 it and it will compliment through the existing services
11 through the use of the food, hotel, fuel, things like that.
12 All those combined, Southwest Weld believes that
13 this is the right time and it ' s the right facility for this
14 area and we urge your approval of it.
15 While I 'm here I 'd like to take off my Southwest
16 Weld cap and offer some personal testimony. As a resident of
17 Weld County, I live within one mile of the Adams County
18 Detention Center which Michael Brand introduced to you earlier
19 in his testimony. Each morning I drop my fourth grade son off
20 at Northeast Elementary. That ' s the very same elementary that
21 Michael Brand offered in his testimony. He, along with 450
22 other students, goes to school daily within two blocks of the
23 Adams County Detention Center. As a parent, I 'm comfortable
24 with that. Might I wish it were further away? Yes . But,
25 it ' s working without incident and along with that, he will go
117
1 to school at a middle school that is within three blocks of
2 the Adams County Detention Center. So we live not only within
3 a mile of such a facility, but we go to school and cohabitate
4 in this very facility that Michael Brand mentioned earlier,
5 which is a maximum security facility. And that ' s why I feel
6 confident in standing before you in my lifestyle saying that
7 it can work for a community.
8 I 'd also like to address property values . I think
9 all of us in Colorado have experienced a nice appreciation of
10 real estate values . I certainly have. In 1990 I refinanced
11 my home, this same home within one mile of the Adams County
12 Jail . In 1993, about two months ago in August, three months
13 ago, I refinanced again to take advantage of lower interest
14 rates . During that time my house increased in value 28% . I
15 don' t think that that was because of this proximity to the
16 Adams County Jail . On the other hand, that same proximity did
17 not preclude an increase in value to my property and my
18 property is not isolated or exclusive from other people ' s
19 values . Conclusion could be that such a facility as this pre-
20 release center might not adversely affect property values
21 whatsoever. And, in fact if it offers employment, it might
22 surely enhance those values . And that concludes my
23 presentation. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Thank you Bill . Are there any
25 questions? Our next speaker will be Joe Cox, and then is Lee
118
1 Yoder in the audience? He left? Marvin Dyer. Go ahead Mr.
2 Cox.
3 MR. COX: My name is Joe Cox and I live at 1719 6th
4 Avenue. I 've lived there since 1956 and when we moved there,
5 there was only two dormitories across the street from us and
6 then they built two more. And there is no comparison in
7 living next to the dormitories or living next to the facility
8 they got over there on the fourth building. We 've never had
9 a minute ' s trouble. We 've never had the police called for
10 that I know of. Or never had anybody bother us or anything,
11 so that ' s all I got to tell you.
12 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Am I right, on 6th Avenue you 're
13 right across the street, is that correct?
14 MR. COX: Right across from The Villa, yes ma ' am.
15 Right in the middle of the block.
16 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Mr.
17 Cox?
18 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER: What ' s your former
19 occupation?
20 MR. COX: I 'm retired. A long time ago I worked for
21 Monfort. I worked for him for 24 years . I was on the police
22 department for 3 years . Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Thank you. Mr. Dyer will be our
24 next speaker and Mr. Tom Gonzales, is he available?
25 MR. DYER: Marvin Dyer, 930 Spencer Street,
119
1 Longmont, Colorado. I represent Dyer Realty, the broker for
2 the property at your disposal this afternoon. The New
3 Creation Church, the seller of the subject property, has owned
4 the property since January of ' 86 . They purchased the
5 property with the intent of building a large church of 3, 000
6 plus congregation, that they are considering a state of the
7 art church facility which would have adequate parking,
8 educational facilities and access from the entire area.
9 Unfortunately, James Miller who negotiated the original
10 purchase of the property, died after a brief illness and
11 following his untimely death, the New Creation Church found it
12 necessary to re-examine the plans to build a new facility of
13 this magnitude and financial burden to the church that this
14 project might have on the congregation as it continued under
15 new leadership. Zoning for the new church was never pursued
16 and the ultimately decided not to build the church on this
17 land and listed the property for sale. The board of directors
18 of the church are located in Longmont as well as in other
19 states . This was not an easy decision for them to make in
20 selling the land and they researched within their own state
21 and everything what property values were in regards to prison,
22 or correctional facility situations before making a decision
23 to sell the property.
24 The church and the board are not developers, nor are
25 they builders, land speculators . Their desire is to sell the
120
1 property. The church has made a considerable investment to
2 provide water and other utilities to market the property, as
3 can be well-substantiated by the St. Vrain Sanitation District
4 and the water company. This investment in the property for
5 the utilities and everything completed for the existing
6 commercial industrial PUD district to make the property usable
7 for a wide variety of uses . The sellers have reviewed the
8 current projects of the pre-parole facility by making
9 inquiries to appraisers and by examining the experience with
10 the property of this nature in other communities . Our
11 research did not indicate any negative aspects, but rather
12 positive, as the value of the property continued to increase
13 equal to other properties in the same location. We did find
14 that this type of industry brought a new and varied employment
15 base to the community. It also presented an increase in tax
16 base for the county, which many other industries would not
17 have provided as quickly because of investment of nearly six
18 and a half million dollars .
19 Weld County benefits by many years, much over 25 or
20 30 years of the investors in this project. They currently
21 operate other correctional facilities in Greeley and Weld
22 County and have been very successful . We have found that
23 their reputations have been very well . We felt very lucky to
24 have a Colorado buyer and one locally in Weld County for this
25 facility.
121
1 Research in other localities where a project of this
2 nature is indicated, other industries and businesses are
3 making a favorable environmental impact for an industrial
4 park. The investors of the pre-parole facility have qualified
5 financially for the bonded indebtedness of this project in
6 addition to local recognition as responsible business
7 operators in Weld County by virtue of their success and
8 productivity in the City of Greeley and Weld County. If this
9 project is constructed in another locality, Colorado, the
10 state and local governments involved will have to pay the
11 price for utilities, sewer and water which is a large
12 investment, to have the fund to build the facility.
13 Installation and presence of these requirements are definitely
14 an advantage for the county and other industries .
15 Other owners of property in the area may express
16 opposition to the proposed pre-parole facility, particularly
17 those with similar land for sale because their property was
18 not selected for this project. There are other property
19 owners who cannot legitimately be opposed on the grounds that
20 their land value would decrease because this is an argument
21 without merit in light of the convincing research which
22 indicates the market continues to grow after facilities such
23 as the proposed is completed.
24 This project will give a high visibility of law
25 enforcement or professional security staff in the neighborhood
122
1 which is expressed by many residents of Weld County. It is
2 not present at this time, perhaps because of budget
3 restrictions in Weld County. Many residents of the area in
4 attendance at the previous planning and zoning meeting voiced
5 their concerns for needed law enforcement in the area. It
6 appears this project may help implement or help provide this
7 service. It is our feeling that Weld County has always
8 enjoyed an adequate zoning code for industry and businesses in
9 their Comprehensive Plan. Their recommendation of Planning
10 staff on this project has provided the administration with
11 assurance of good research and study substantiating the
12 qualification of this application for the pre-parole project .
13 My office, for several years, has been located
14 within one block of a correction facility and the city jail in
15 downtown Longmont. The City of Longmont has recently
16 completed and begun using the new Safety and Justice Center at
17 a total cost of 17 million dollars to the citizens of
18 Longmont. This includes facilities for processing and holding
19 prisoners . The new facility in Longmont was constructed so
20 that it can, with fairly minor modifications, become a jail
21 facility with all requirements for housing prisoners on a
22 longer term basis . Both of these facilities are within easy
23 walking distance of the library, the city complex, Times Call
24 newspaper, the banks and other downtown businesses which
25 employ and serve many persons each day. Residential
123
1 neighborhoods are also surrounding this area. I am sure that
2 many of the people in this room have completed business
3 transactions and required service near correctional
4 facilities . We have probably done so without feeling undue
5 concern that we are near such a facility, and in fact most of
6 us agree that such facilities are a requirement of our
7 community and society. Thank you for allowing me time to
8 present this .
9 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Mr.
10 Dyer? Thank you Mr. Dyer. Mr. Gonzales are you present?
11 Brian Vanbuskirk? Harry Asmus?
12 MR. ASMUS : Commissioners, I 'm Harry Asmus . I live
13 at 4461 Pioneer Drive here in Greeley. I have been a
14 businessman in Weld County for 38 years . It ' s a long time.
15 I 'm involved in businesses at this time that we employ more
16 than 600 employees in Weld County, of which The Villa is one
17 of them. Mr. Coppom and myself and Mr. Brand are partners in
18 this venture of the pre-parole release center and you have
19 heard much today to consider and I want to be very brief and
20 just speak to the facts .
21 Yes, it is a fact that this facility would employ
22 110 plus people. It is a fact that this facility would
23 purchase more than $100, 000 of supplies from Weld County
24 producers . And it is a fact that this facility will be taxed
25 as a private enterprise and many dollars of tax monies will be
124
1 flowing into the county. It ' s also a fact that it will employ
2 many people in an $8 million construction project. And it is
3 a fact that this facility will meet all of the requirements on
4 safety and security that is required by the various
5 departments . And it is a fact that we met the county planning
6 department requirements, and you have a letter in your files,
7 their requesting that we 've met all of the requirements that
8 were proposed.
9 Now these are all facts . I have been in the
10 corrections business industry for 11 years, and all of it
11 right here in Greeley. But I have seen these young people
12 come through the facility and serve their time, and within
13 three years, these same people are coming back to us, some of
14 them serving more time after they serve a time down at Canon
15 City. Very little is being done for these young people out in
16 the correction facilities that the state operates . But this
17 facility is programmed and will be programmed to where we ' ll
18 be able to help and salvage some of these lives so that they
19 will become employed and taxpayers . And this is very
20 important because the average person today is costing well
21 over $25, 000 a year to keep in our state correction programs .
22 And we know that we can salvage a lot of these people and get
23 them back as citizens that will be working in the communities
24 and paying taxes and paying for themselves . Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Thank you. Mr. Asmus, would you
125
1 wait just a moment, please, we have a question.
2 MR. ASMUS : Yes .
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: [ Inaudible] the employment
4 base, in both construction and the ongoing operating staff,
5 where do you see that employment base coming from?
6 MR. ASMUS: I can answer it the best I can. I think
7 John and Michael could answer that. I think I ' ll let them
8 answer it .
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, I 'd like to hear your
10 response.
11 MR. ASMUS : My response would be that it ' ll come
12 within a radius of about 25 to 30 miles . Now, I don' t know if
13 it will be from Boulder or from Longmont, Loveland, Greeley,
14 there ' ll be some from Greeley. There ' ll be some from locally
15 from Dacono and Frederick and wherever. I 'm sure of that.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
17 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any other questions for
18 Mr. Asmus? We have a card from a Deanna Holmes and I don' t
19 know, are you speaking for, is this, for? I need to know, are
20 you speaking for or against?
21 MS . HOLMES : For.
22 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: All right. Would you like to
23 speak then?
24 MS. HOLMES : Good afternoon Board and Commissioners .
25 My name is Deanna Holmes and I reside at 2030 26th Avenue
126
1 Court here in Greeley. I 'm a psychotherapist and I also work
2 with what is commonly known as a rape crisis here in Weld
3 County. We serve all of Weld County and we serve those that
4 are victims and survivors of sexual assault. And coming from
5 that perspective, from a victim/survivor perspective, I 'd like
6 to address this issue a little bit because there ' s a lot of
7 fear in the community that these individuals from this
8 correctional facility will escape and rape in the community.
9 Let me give you a typical night for sexual assault
10 in Greeley, Colorado and in Weld County. The telephone rings
11 and it ' s either the police department, Greeley Police
12 Department, Weld County Sheriff ' s Department or the hospital
13 calling us, telling us that there is a sexual assault victim
14 at the hospital or on the way. We respond. Those individuals
15 then are treated, a rape kit is done and that information is
16 sent to the Colorado Department of Corrections . I don't mean
17 the Department of Corrections, the Colorado Bureau of
18 Investigation for determination of whether there is sufficient
19 evidence. Also it all goes to Weld County Attorney' s Office
20 to see if that will go for an indictment or not. And coming
21 from the victim' s perspective, the victim goes through the
22 trauma of the rape kit. She is already, and while speaking of
23 ' she ' at this point, because we receive very few male. Most
24 of the females are the ones who come forward on this . She
25 goes through the trauma of the rape kit. She goes through the
127
1 trauma of being disbelieved. She goes through the trauma of
2 being sexually assaulted. She goes through the trauma of
3 being questioned again and again and again by police officers .
4 We ask her what went on and the Sheriff ' s Department or
5 whatever correctional department is there ask what went on.
6 She goes through all those, then she begins to ask herself,
7 "How did I get into this position? Am I at fault? Did I
8 dress too provocatively? How did I cause this to happen?" So
9 to say, and what happens is that at the very end of our
10 conversation we find out who the perpetrator is . And what I 'd
11 like to tell you is that the perpetrator is almost always an
12 acquaintance. It is national statistics that most of the
13 rapes and sexual assaults that occur in this country and in
14 Weld County are done by your own family members, neighbors,
15 friends, and most of all that is rampant right now, is date or
16 acquaintance rape. So the fear, then, that these individuals
17 are going to get out and rape within the community is invalid.
18 And I can' t guarantee anything, but you can' t guarantee you ' re
19 not going to go home and be hit by a car since statistics says
20 you ' ll be hit more by a car than you would be if you walked
21 home and rode a bicycle. Thank you. Is there any questions?
22 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any question for Ms .
23 Holmes? Are there any other people in the audience that would
24 like to speak for the proposal? Okay.
25 We will go to those that are against the proposal .
128
1 First of all, I believe there is legal counsel present for a
2 group, would legal counsel come forward at this time please.
3 We need to give that to legal counsel, please.
4 MR. DAHL: This copy' s for everybody. Members of
5 the Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
6 My name ' s Gerald Dahl . I 'm a partner at the Denver law firm
7 of Gorsuch, Curgiss, Campbell, Lockhorn and Grover. I
8 represent the Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County and
9 those are the folks with the red stickers out there. As a
10 preliminary matter I really want to personally thank them for
11 coming today and for staying through a day that ' s been very
12 long and being real patient and listening carefully to hear
13 what the applicant and the applicant' s witnesses had to say.
14 I can' t tell you that we're going to be here 7 hours from now
15 or even 5 hours from now because I don' t think we will . I
16 don' t think our case is going to be as lengthy as the
17 applicant ' s , but it ' s not the briefest of cases either. This
18 is an important matter and it was important to the applicant.
19 It' s important for the applicant to put on a pretty
20 comprehensive case. Due process and fairness means the
21 opponents and members of the public that have concern with
22 this project also be able to put on a comprehensive case so
23 that you've got the benefit of their thoughts as well . You 've
24 got some reports on what they might think from the various
25 witnesses for the applicant, but I want them to tell you in
129
1 their own words and through me how they feel about this
2 application as well .
3 As almost any good speaker will do, I want to tell
4 you what it is I want to accomplish here. At the tail end of
5 what I 've got, I also have the witness list for the individual
6 witnesses that we would like called in that particular order.
7 We understand, of course, just as with the applicant, there
8 will be some additional witnesses after that in the nature of
9 volunteers on that side of the case.
10 What I want to do is describe the legal and factual
11 basis which is the reason for denial of this application, or
12 rather the reasons for denial of the application. Now this
13 will be based on your zoning regulations . You 've been having
14 people cite those regulations to you all day and I 'm not going
15 to be any different. I 'm going to have to do that because it
16 is those regulations that control and you're absolutely right,
17 it ' s the green sheet which sets out the applicant' s burden of
18 proof here. It ' s not the opponents ' burden of proof. The
19 applicants have got to sustain that burden of proof . It ' s my
20 job, of course, in my witnesses to do the best that I can to
21 point out how the applicant hasn' t sustained that burden of
22 proof and I ' ll undertake to do that. I want to also, toward
23 the end, confirm some exhibits in the record because it' s
24 important to us that a couple of exhibits which we think are
25 critical are made a part of record. I believe they' re in the
130
1 record already, but I want to confirm that. My material and
2 I think, to some degree, the witnesses that will follow me
3 really are only going to talk about two things .
4 I 'm going to talk about two things, two key things .
5 Is this a proper application? Can you apply for a prison in
6 the Fort Junction PUD without amending that plat? Can you do
7 that? And you 've heard from the applicant their opinion on
8 that subject. That ' s just critical . Is this a proper
9 application? Can they ask for this use? Is it on the list,
10 wherever those lists might be found, legally as it applies to
11 this property. It ' s fundamental and I 'm going to spend a
12 little time on that.
13 Secondly, is this a good idea? Is this project
14 compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? And that
15 standard, of course, is throughout your zoning regulation.
16 Those are the two things I want to focus on because I think
17 they are fundamental to the case. Now, I have given you my
18 handout which is largely the material that I also gave the
19 Planning Commission. And I want to go through it roughly in
20 order, but I certainly won ' t be reading from it.
21 First, of course, there is the requirement in the
22 zoning regulation that the PUD district not be abandoned. If
23 you 're not built within a year you 've got to come in and
24 essentially ask for permission to keep that thing alive.
25 There was a radial silence from 1989 through 1993 until there
131
1 was an application to extend that. Now I understand the
2 Planning Commission said, "Well, okay" , but I would point out
3 that this is an applicant landowner who sat on his rights for
4 an awful long time. Longer than the zoning code contemplates,
5 certainly longer.
6 We get to the second page of my material and get to,
7 what for me, is this key use. Can you apply for a prison
8 here? Can you do it? I don ' t think you can. Excuse me,
9 that ' s an opinion. You can' t and here ' s why. First, and this
10 is frankly coming out of testimony from the applicant. We all
11 know and it ' s admitted that prison uses weren' t contemplated
12 at the time, 1988 and 1989 that the Fort Junction PUD district
13 plan was approved. And Mr. Nelson, who was there and
14 represented the applicant by the way at that time for that PUD
15 application, should know that and he ' s the guy standing here
16 and said, that ' s right, it wasn 't in our minds, we didn't
17 think, that was not the intention of that particular zoning
18 activity, the church was still trying to figure out its
19 options and basically designing zoning for itself that maybe
20 it could later market the property from. Now that' s not to
21 say that it couldn't be in the plat as listed, but the first
22 point to make is it certainly wasn't in anyone ' s intentions ,
23 in anyone' s thoughts . Why is that important? It ' s important
24 because what we ' re being told now is, well, prison uses are
25 implied when you rezone to C-1 through C-4 , they' re really
132
1 implied. If they' re implied, first I don' t agree that, but if
2 they' re implied, I would certainly hope that they would have
3 been mentioned in that early application. I went through the
4 Fort Junction PUD file, both the Planning Commission and Board
5 of County Commissioners . Pretty skinny, both of the tapes
6 have been thrown away, but what ' s there is pretty clear to me
7 and I agree with Mr. Nelson, prison uses weren' t discussed,
8 weren' t contemplated at that time.
9 All right, what exactly did the Board of County
10 Commissioners approve? What was the check mark, what ticket
11 did they punch in 1989 that would essentially list the uses
12 allowed? I don ' t have to tell you that in your PUD system
13 you 've got to list the uses that they will later apply for if
14 they are not on the list, the answer isn't apply for one
15 that ' s not on the list and try to get somebody to say yes .
16 The answer is you come in to get the list, amend it, and to
17 add the list to the schedule. If gas stations aren't on there
18 and you want to do a gas station, it ' s a PUD district, you
19 come in and you amend it into the district. Sure, it ' s more
20 complicated than that, but that ' s where we begin. Let ' s look
21 at the Board of County Commissioners ' resolution that was
22 adopted in 1989 . It says that the uses allowed will be the
23 uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance in the Zone
24 District C-1 through C-4 plus I-1 . Uses as listed. It
25 doesn't say any other unclassified uses . As the code
133
1 provides . It didn't refer to those unclassified uses . It
2 listed uses as listed in 1989 and Zone District C-1 through C-
3 4 plus I-1 . You've got to find the prison use in those use
4 lists for this application to be proper. If it ' s not there,
5 they can't amend the application, the plat on the spot here,
6 they've got to go back and submit an application to amend that
7 PUD plan, excuse me, PUD plat. I think that phraseology is
8 important, the uses as listed phraseology, and what is
9 essentially being sought here is a rezoning without asking for
10 rezoning, in my opinion.
11 Well, let ' s examine these districts a little bit.
12 I 'm over on my page 3 . To be a proper application, you 've got
13 to find yourself in that list. I went through the lists .
14 Various things appear. Prisons and pre-parole correctional
15 facilities, of course, don' t appear. I did the legal
16 research. The applicant ' s attorney was kind enough to find
17 some errors in the numbers of my citations and I fixed those,
18 both in yours and the one I just gave the guy and I 'm always
19 happy to get some help, but those cases stand for the
20 proposition that, or the rule that if you have a list of
21 things that is specific as the C-1 through C-4 use lists are,
22 things that aren't mentioned aren' t implied to be in the
23 lists . If you have a structure, a zoning structure that
24 relies on a list to control things, here' s what you can do.
25 It ' s sort of a safe harbor, it ' s got to be there. Unspecified
134
1 uses . If you ' re into the listing system, as this county is,
2 by its own zoning resolution, then you 've got to stick by that
3 system. And the cases say that.
4 Now, let ' s talk about the argument that was made,
5 because I want to come to grips with the argument the
6 applicant made and I think you probably understood why they
7 were putting on the doctor, to say that in his opinion that
8 one of the programs offered here was rehabilitative in nature.
9 One of the things allowed in the C-1 through C-4, I don' t
10 think it ' s in every one of them, it ' s in at least two of those
11 districts, and thusly it ' s in the Fort Junction PUD is
12 hospital or mental or physical rehabilitation institutions .
13 And obviously the argument is we 're not a prison, we 're a
14 hospital or a mental or physical rehabilitation institution.
15 I 'm sure that ' s not quite the argument they' re saying, but
16 really both. I think you have to choose because the list says
17 hospitals, mental, physical rehabilitation institutions . What
18 exactly does that mean? We 've gotten the Webster' s
19 definitions, but let ' s kind of go through what has been
20 presented to you and since the zoning resolution says, Section
21 5 . 9 Words and Phrases, we ' re talking about hospital, mental
22 institution, which are not specifically defined shall be
23 assigned their ordinary contemporary meanings . Well , the real
24 issue is what ' s the ordinary contemporary meaning of mental
25 rehabilitation institution, physical rehabilitation
135
1 institution, and hospital? And does that match up with what
2 has been described to you today? Fair enough?
3 Okay, what ' s been described? First, we 've got the
4 architect, Mr. Bley, saying you know this thing is identical
5 in at least five ways to the county jail . We 've got Mr. Hiatt
6 saying over and over that it ' s a prison and it ' s okay with
7 him. And, I 'm not focusing on it ' s okay, I 'm focusing on what
8 he thinks it is, what his impression of what this proposal
9 is . All right, we 've got two security fences which, of course
10 are buried below grade and they' re all of that stuff. It ' s a
11 Department of Corrections licensed facility, DOC is of course
12 doing the RFP that they' re going to respond to, to be able to
13 do this . Probably most important from a legal standpoint is
14 the people there are serving time on their sentences . You can
15 bet that for example, if I 'm sentenced for five years in jail
16 and I go to the pre-parole facility 90 days before I am
17 released, those 90 days that I 'm there I 'm still serving my
18 sentence. You serve your sentence in prisons unless you ' re
19 doing day reporting or work-release. My feeling is this :
20 this place is like no hospital I 've ever been in, with that
21 kind of set of features . It ' s a prison. But what ' s the
22 argument that' s really being made? Because they want you to
23 accept both issues . Let' s accept that for a minute. It' s a
24 prison that offers, we ' ll say, I 'm not saying I agree, but
25 it' s a prison that offers rehabilitative services . Because of
136
1 that, goes the argument, in the zoning resolution where it
2 says rehabilitation institutions, the rehabilitative aspect of
3 what we' re doing means that we qualify as a Use by Right in
4 that use schedule. That has tremendous consequences if you
5 agree with that interpretation. And here ' s what the
6 consequences are. For example, anything I do in connection
7 with it, no matter how minor or major, they' re saying it ' s a
8 big part. But I ' ll bet you they're not saying that ' s the
9 primary reason they' re there. Maybe they are, but the point
10 is they' re still a prison. Anything I do in addition to some
11 other use means that I get to pull that other use along. If
12 there ' s a use by right for this one thing that I 'm doing in
13 the list; example, if you 've got, and I don't think it ' s true
14 in the zoning code here, but for example if you've got a zone
15 district allowing restaurants or delis we ' ll say and not
16 allowing or prohibiting gasoline stations . I come in, I 've
17 got a gas station, I sell deli products . I sell the
18 sandwiches, I sell the juice. It' s the same argument. I will
19 stand here and tell you, see here ' s an aspect of my operation
20 and it clearly is a deli . Delis are uses by right. And you
21 know that ' s really the main reason that people stop, they
22 don't buy that much gas . Your choices I think, faced with
23 that kind of argument, are only two: you can basically come
24 to the conclusion that prisons are okay in all of the C-Zones
25 everywhere hospital, mental or physical rehabilitation center
137
1 is an allowed use by right, a conditional use, special use,
2 accessory use, probably not that, prisons are allowed if they
3 have this kind of program that was so well-described by the
4 doctor and the other witnesses . I think that has tremendous
5 consequences . I don't think that ' s right. I don't think it ' s
6 true, I don't think that ' s how the zoning resolution was
7 intended to operate. I think words in their ordinary meaning
8 mean you look at the whole ball of wax here and you say we
9 have to make a choice. It' s either a prohibited use or
10 certainly not allowed or it ' s an allowed use. Which aspect of
11 this use dominates?
12 I think we've spent most of our time today, the
13 doctor' s testimony aside, talking about this prison. And I
14 believe that it ' s fair to call it that. Or even a pre-parole
15 release facility isn' t in the C-1 through C-4 list either.
16 The PUD District requirements . This is supportive
17 of the argument that I 've just made, but the PUD District
18 requirements essentially say that any use in a plan
19 application, which is what you have in front of you, must be
20 "identical" to those located and described in the planned unit
21 development district plat at Section 28 . 9 . Is this identical?
22 Honestly I don't see an application for example, for in the
23 plan application, I don' t see the plan application saying it' s
24 a plan application for a hospital or a mental or physical
25 rehabilitation institution. Even if it said that, you 've
138
1 heard my opinion on the subject, that I do not believe those
2 are that a prison with that aspect of it should qualify. But
3 it ' s got to be identical . And that ' s kind of the reason you
4 get into writing those uses in the plat anyhow, because
5 they' re right. And earlier testimony, in the PUD district
6 there is greater flexibility. So the protection for the
7 county in that context is to make sure that the uses that
8 allow such flexibility are written down so that you do not
9 have kind of a zoning free-for-all later. The uses have to be
10 identical to the plat . The resolution requires it . This
11 proposed use is not identical to the plat.
12 I 'm over to my page four and the point I want to
13 make about due process of law is this : what we are seeing,
14 processing a plan application for a use that isn' t allowed.
15 Prison use isn' t allowed. Processing that and approving it is
16 essentially rezoning that property and amending the PUD plat
17 without due process of law. And that' s important and if that
18 is done, that ' s a denial of due process because the notices,
19 and I 've reviewed them from your record, the notices both in
20 front of the Planning Commission and this Board, say that this
21 is a public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development
22 Plan for the property described below and not a rezoning, not
23 an amendment to the plat. And if it ' s approved, you have
24 rezoned, you have amended the plat, you have added prison uses
25 to that plat. The notice provided the public here simply does
139
1 not give them the notice of that kind of action and the
2 applicant would probably admit they're not making that kind of
3 application because they believe that the uses are unlisted.
4 There ' s a second aspect of the plat amendment that ' s
5 being suggested here and I 'd like to draw your attention to
6 the bottom of page 5, top of page 6 of my materials . There ' s
7 another plat note that ' s been addressed already by the
8 applicants that prior to recording the plan plat, the thing
9 that ' s being proposed in front of you today, a law enforcement
10 authority shall be formed. Obviously this was at the behest
11 of the County Sheriff who wrote this letter which I 've quoted
12 a portion of in the middle of my page 6 , and it ended up as a
13 plat note. But it says before you record a plan plat you've
14 got to have formed this . It doesn't say before you record it
15 you've got to have formed it unless there' s another letter
16 from the Sheriff that says it' s okay or that the Sheriff and
17 the applicant have decided that isn' t relevant anymore. The
18 point I 'm making here, and it ' s another significant one, is
19 that it is your role and your authority to add plat notes and
20 you enforce them. And I do not see anywhere in the Fort
21 Junction plat where authority has been delegated by this Board
22 to the County Sheriff, to the applicant, to anyone else to
23 unilaterally take a plat note off and to stand here and say
24 you don' t have to worry about the plat note, it ' s a pre-
25 condition to development, but you may remove it, it has been
140
1 removed because we've examined it and we feel it ' s not
2 important . They may well be right on the subject matter, but
3 the point is they are proposing an amendment to your plat note
4 that was important. It' s probably better to give other
5 examples . Commonly, I know, you add plat notes for protection
6 of the public. You know, an application will come in front of
7 you and it looks okay except for one issue and you ' ll require
8 a plat note be put on there to make sure that future
9 development is controlled in a given way, if it ' s access, if
10 it ' s utilities, whatever it might be. Those plat notes are
11 important and they become a part of the zoning package on the
12 property. What ' s being suggested is that unilaterally those
13 can be taken off without action of the Board of County
14 Commissioners, and I don' t believe that ' s true.
15 The Sheriff ' s letter, at that time however, makes a
16 good point . I quote it in the middle of page 6 . It says the
17 area is literally becoming an unincorporated city that will
18 demand far more resources and be available under conventional
19 county mill levies . He was saying that in aid of his point,
20 that their ought to be an LEA, but I want to look at it from
21 a kind of somewhat different perspective. We heard testimony
22 earlier, you know, this isn' t in any kind of growth area, it' s
23 out in the boonies and that ' s how come it ' s compatible out
24 there . It might not be if it were in an area that were more
25 dense. Well, even at that time, in 1988-89, we've got county
141
1 officials being concerned about the density of developments
2 becoming an unincorporated city, is what it said, and I think
3 that ' s largely true. And that bears upon whether or not, even
4 if you go to the second issue, whether or not it is compatible
5 in this area.
6 The Zoning Ordinance itself, the zoning resolution,
7 imposes additional requirements . I notice that, for example,
8 off-site road impacts have to be addressed. The applicant has
9 said all of the roads are private, we don' t have any off-site
10 road, public road needs, desires, problems . On page 7 I 've
11 quoted to you a letter from the Department of Transportation
12 which is in your record. I 've gone through the record and
13 it ' s there. Basically saying, well you know, the Department
14 of Transportation has not made a commitment as to the
15 auxiliary lanes necessary to serve development along the state
16 highway. And the issue of who ' s going to construct that
17 remains unresolved. We have the applicant saying this
18 intersection, and I 'm quoting, "will be well-built" so don' t
19 worry about added traffic impacts and, therefore, we shouldn' t
20 have to satisfy any traffic concerns at this stage because the
21 State Department of Highways is going to, Transportation,
22 excuse me, is going to worry about that . We all know the
23 state of that intersection now, especially at noon time. I
24 haven't heard any testimony or facts in the record that say
25 when exactly Highways is going to get around to solving that
142
1 problem, but meanwhile the proposal is to exacerbate it, at
2 whatever level of trips, more than what are taking place now.
3 Compatibility of the project with the Comprehensive
4 Plan, the affected community. This is the second of the two
5 big points I said I wanted to make. Other witnesses from our
6 group will be making points with respect to compatibility as
7 well . But what I would like to do is review briefly, because
8 of course this is a requirement, they've got to prove
9 compatibility if you even decide they can apply. They've got
10 to prove compatibility along with the other criteria. And
11 they' ve made their best argument on that subject. But I want
12 to review some of the evidence that ' s in the record already.
13 And in that stack of files, wherever they ended up, that I
14 reviewed in your offices yesterday morning, I think,
15 afternoon, that has all of this stuff in it. And I want to
16 tick off a couple of important things that are there.
17 First, something that the applicant has not mentioned a
18 word of yet today, although Mr. Bley told us who said yes to
19 this application, he didn't say who said no of course. The
20 Tri-Area Planning Commission has recommended denial and there
21 is a letter in the record on that subject. Your own Planning
22 Commission has recommended denial and that evidence of that
23 action is in the record. And for fairness, while we ' re
24 talking about who ' s recommended saying yes , we need also to
25 mention who ' s recommended saying no. And those two planning
143
1 commissions, I think, are significant. They are charged,
2 largely, with the job recommending whether something is
3 compatible or not. They are essentially your advisors on that
4 subject and you can take or leave their advice as you must do
5 as elected officials, but their advice is very important and
6 it ' s in the record. Now you also have a lot of letters, I
7 think there ' s at least one file that ' s nothing but letters,
8 and I ' ve gone through those, I 'm sure you have. I didn' t
9 count, I think they're probably four to one against, in that
10 neighborhood, maybe I 'm wrong, maybe it ' s three to one, I
11 don' t think it ' s less than that. The point I 'd make about the
12 opposition letters in that file is this : They are not mass-
13 produced. Individual people sat down and wrote those or typed
14 them or telephoned-in in each and every case. And honestly,
15 I represent local governments and we often get, you know, 15
16 letters, but they' re all the same, even if they' re all typed
17 up, they all came off the same typewriter. I think that the
18 depth of feeling about this in opposition is shown in those
19 letters . As well in the file, in the record, there is a
20 people' s petition, I think in between 1,400 and 1, 500
21 signatures opposing this facility and I think that ' s
22 significant and it ' s something you have to take into
23 consideration. Now, there is a map, and you can bring that
24 up, to make the letters and the people ' s petition sort of
25 visually real as I 'd like to show you a picture of a flower
144
1 bed. No, I 'm kidding.
2 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are you aware that this has, if
3 you show it to us, it has to be admitted as an exhibit?
4 MR. DAHL: Yes, it' s yours and I want it to be,
5 absolutely. Can we just set it right there.
6 What we have done, and I 'd like this to have either
7 letter A or 1 for opponent ' s exhibits . What we have done is
8 we have gone to that 1,400 or 1, 500 signature petition as well
9 as people who have written letters and people who have
10 contributed money and joined the Concerned Citizens of
11 Southwest County cause and we have identified for you on the
12 map the properties that they own and those properties are in
13 blue. And then the proposed facility site is in pink. I
14 think it' s important for you not to just get a stack of what
15 are clearly petitions that, it was easy, you just signed one
16 line. But you also got a bunch of letters people had to write
17 and it' s important for you to see where those people are in
18 your county and the extent to which they're distributed and
19 where they are and just the impact of knowing there' s a lot of
20 people out there that have a real concern about this project .
21 So that ' s Exhibit 1 and I will leave it here and it will be
22 submitted.
23 MR. BARKER: Actually it is Exhibit 6 .
24 MR. DAHL: Six, fine. Six it is . Just leave it
25 there, that ' s good.
145
1 While I 'm on the subject of exhibits and just to
2 give you a precis of where I 'm headed, I 'm closing in on my
3 piece. While we're on exhibits, I want to make note of but
4 not give you, because they're already in the record, but make
5 note of some exhibits that I believe are critical to both of
6 the two issues I 've raised: the compatibility question and,
7 more fundamentally, can they do this, can they, is this a
8 proper application, can you apply for a prison use where
9 prison uses aren' t listed? And those exhibits or those pieces
10 in the record are your, the resolution of this Board March 8,
11 1989, that ' s one of the earliest ones creating Fort Junction
12 PUD plan, of course. The plat itself by recorded February 13,
13 1990, that plat of course lists the uses C-1 through C-4, it
14 doesn't list prisons and the LEA has to be formed before plat
15 approval note is in that exhibit. There' s the memorandum from
16 the Weld County Sheriff December 20, 1988, that ' s the
17 memorandum that says this is turning into an unincorporated
18 city and an LEA ought to be formed first. That, on the
19 subject of just density and the nature of this area . All of
20 the letters which have been mailed, both to the Planning
21 Commission and to this Board, because that I think gets to the
22 heart of what the people represented by the blue there are
23 concerned about . The people' s petition we 've talked about.
24 And this map, Exhibit 6 .
25 Before I go to the witnesses, the conclusion that I
146
1 have is everyone has cited you Section 28 . 13 . That ' s on the
2 green sheet . That ' s the list of things the applicant has to
3 do. Something that ' s, both of the points that I have made are
4 on that list a couple of different times, but the applicants
5 got to show you that the proposal, among other things conforms
6 to the PUD District in which it' s located. Applicant can ' t do
7 that here. The reason is that district doesn't allow this use
8 and that is the first argument I raised. But if this district
9 does not allow the use, if you believe as I do, that you can ' t
10 take a mixed use which is primarily a prison, but offers other
11 functions, rehabilitation services , you can't say that that
12 becomes a rehabilitation service as allowed use by right and
13 pull, you know the tail can' t wag that dog. It ' s got to
14 conform to the PUD District plat. It doesn't, by virtue of
15 that . They haven' t satisfied that requirement at point one
16 and point two, and they have to satisfy all of them.
17 The other major point I made is that it has to be
18 compatible with the surrounding community. That' s the
19 evidence in the exhibits that I kind of wanted to detail, and
20 the testimony that you' ll hear.
21 Before going into the witnesses, I 'd like to make a
22 couple points about witnesses and about opinion testimony.
23 We've heard a lot today, that well you know, their stuff is
24 opinions and don' t listen to it or at least listen to it with
25 a jaundiced ear. I kind of think that an opinion is something
147
1 that the other guy says and a fact is something that I 'm
2 presenting, because I think it ' s fair to say that both sides
3 here are going to have opinions . Heck, I heard Mr. Bley say
4 that in his opinion this application fully complies . And of
5 course it ' s not as easy as that. That ' s not a fact, it ' s an
6 opinion. It ' s probably a well-reasoned opinion from his
7 perspective, but it ' s still an opinion. Literally everyone on
8 both sides are going to tell you in my opinion I think this is
9 true or not. You have to judge, of course, the credibility
10 and the weight of opinions and I know you do that all the
11 time, but I want to dispel the notion that unless you 're some
12 guy hired from Denver like me wearing a suit, that what you
13 have to say, if it ' s couched in the form of an opinion, it ' s
14 not important and I feel strongly that it' s the people that
15 are going to follow me that are more important in terms of
16 what they have to say on that subject . And there are a lot of
17 suits up here, but I think it ' s important, and you will hear
18 from the people whose lives are going to be affected by what
19 is being proposed.
20 I am also a believer that to the degree you are
21 afraid of or concerned about something, you shouldn' t be made
22 to feel ashamed that you feel that way and that you shouldn' t
23 be made to feel ashamed that you are coming here and saying
24 that you fear something. And I firmly believe that if any of
25 the witnesses that are going to follow me say they are afraid
148
1 of something happening, that ' s a fairly legitimate thing for
2 them to say to you and I think it ' s something that is fair for
3 you to listen to.
4 I have here, can I hand it to you this time, the
5 list of witnesses that will present, along with their sign-up
6 cards in order, and I think there ' s some extra copies of that
7 witness list if Madam Chair needs them. However, because of
8 the time, and I know it ' s tough to accommodate various
9 witnesses, Mr. Leroy Clark, who is the first witness, had to
10 leave. He came in here, I told him to get here at 10 and stay
11 till we need you, but he had to leave. So I would make two
12 requests : one that I can tell you what he was going to say.
13 I 've got some points from him, and lastly that if other
14 witnesses for the applicant, in the form of Ms . Garrison show
15 up and that' s fine, I would ask that the opposition have the
16 same right that applicants did which is to be able to present
17 a coherent, cohesive presentation and not to have it
18 interrupted. We certainly, I suppose I could have put Mr.
19 Clark on and said he ' s got to get on now in the middle of
20 their presentation, I suggest that we be allowed, the persons
21 opposing ought to be allowed to complete a sort of package
22 presentation to you because we have sat very carefully and
23 patiently listening to a similar package and we both have that
24 right.
25 Mr. Leroy Clark is a long-haul truck driver and I
149
1 know it ' s going to be tough for you to pretend I 'm a long-haul
2 truck driver. But, hey. His points are real short and long-
3 haul truck drivers just say it in a few words I guess .
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: May I ask you a question?
5 MR. DAHL: Sure.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: By not being interrupted,
7 what do you mean by that?
8 MR. DAHL: Oh, in terms of the scheduling of Ms .
9 Garrison,
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: You don' t want us to
11 interrupt you with Ms . Garrison?
12 MR. DAHL: Yeah, I think that
13 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: No, we won' t do that.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But we can ask questions of
15 you?
16 MR. DAHL: Oh, absolutely. That wasn' t what I was
17 talking about . The applicant had said when she comes in can
18 we put her on, and that ' s fine, but you know, I 'd kind of like
19 to just get our case on as a unit.
20 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: We will follow in order so that
21 you can present your whole case and if Ms . Garrison does come
22 in, she will speak before the rebuttal .
23 MR. DAHL: Otherwise, interrupt away. The points
24 that Mr. Clark made, and I 've got his written material, but I
25 also spoke with him. And his points are these and I think are
150
1 very important . A truck driver' s home is his home away from
2 home and the places for that person to stop really are
3 limited, he said, for a number of reasons . And I know one is,
4 you know, where can you store a truck, you can' t just pull
5 into any motel . They really are considerably limited. Del
6 Camino is one of the places that truckers can stop. Mr. Clark
7 lives, I think in Longmont, and you know, he wanted to make
8 the point that the people, a truck driver, for example, that
9 will be stopping at that location, is a special kind of victim
10 because they often carry a lot of money often in the form of
11 cash just for the kinds of deeds that they have. They are
12 also transporting a lot of valuable stuff, whatever it happens
13 to be in that truck. And they are a potential class, but
14 honestly I don't think the rest of us really think of that
15 class of victim, you know, but they really are a potential
16 target. And his point is I 'd like to feel secure. He related
17 to me basically his experience with truck stops that are near
18 prison facilities and he indicated he has been approached at
19 all hours of the night by people offering all sorts of things
20 and threatening all sorts of things . And as a truck driver
21 that ' s sitting at a truck stop down here, idling in the middle
22 of the night, I can understand his need to be secure. And he
23 has pointed out in a couple of places, in a couple instances
24 where he has felt less secure because of the presence of a
25 prison facility nearby. His last point is that I would like
151
1 to feel more secure and I know he said that from the heart .
2 I very much appreciate your time, your patience and
3 it ' s an important process and we very much appreciate your
4 giving it the attention you are. If, Madam Chairman, with
5 your permission, I would just suggest that you would go ahead
6 and call the other names . Once you 've gotten through Frank
7 Canapa, that is our list of witnesses and I dare say there are
8 some others . I 'd be happy to answer any questions, however.
9 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Mr.
10 Dahl?
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I have a question for you.
12 In your letter here, basically you ' re describing a pre-parole
13 facility as a prison use. Could you define a pre-parole
14 facility for me and would you also outline for me anywhere
15 where you have seen pre-parole facility defined as a prison?
16 MR. DAHL: I guess the definition of a pre-parole
17 facility that I 'd rely upon would be the one advanced by the
18 applicants here today. I wouldn ' t quarrel with their
19 definition of the kinds of activities that take place, let me
20 back up, the people that are there and why they' re there.
21 They are serving a sentence but they have been approved for
22 release and they don' t qualify for community corrections .
23 These are all things the applicant has said. But I think
24 they' re real fair descriptions, but they are serving that
25 sentence. I 'd emphasize that as a part of my definition. The
152
1 applicants didn' t really, but I would, because they're serving
2 a sentence and if it ' s five years and they' re short 90 days,
3 the days they are in this facility are part of that five
4 years . And I certainly would not quarrel with the fact that
5 during that time, to the extent possible, they receive
6 rehabilitative instruction; however, I do not believe that
7 that rehabilitative instruction aspect is necessarily designed
8 or is designed to be successful . I heard Mr. Coppom or was it
9 Mr. Brand, say we do the best we can you know while they're
10 there. But you know that' s it. We don' t pretend to
11 completely fix these people and maybe they're there for 90
12 days, you hope, maybe it ' s less amount of time, in other
13 words, the services that are offered while they are there.
14 But that ' s very different, isn' t it, than going to a
15 rehabilitation center with a specific problem and you're
16 enrolled in a specific program for a specific period of time
17 and there are certain tasks and, you know, to graduate from
18 the program you've got to do it. Those things I think are
19 true of pre-parole. You 've got people finishing their
20 sentences that have been approved for release that don' t
21 qualify for community corrections and they do, they are
22 offered these services . Now there may be other descriptive
23 terms that the applicants would suggest, but I think that to
24 me this pre-parole, it' s not in the zoning code of course, as
25 a defined term.
153
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Do you think that the act
2 itself, that is also included in our packet, do you think it
3 defines a pre-parole facility as a prison? Is that listed
4 anywhere in here?
5 MR. DAHL: The state statute, I don' t have it right
6 to hand.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: 90-1327?
8 MR. DAHL: I 'd have to pull the statute and see if
9 90-13?
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: House Bill 90-13-27 .
11 MR. DAHL: Okay, yeah okay, House Bill . I 'm sorry,
12 I 'd have to see it to see if there' s a definitional section in
13 there.
14 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: I guess I 'd like to ask along
15 with that of what your definition would be, then of an
16 institution.
17 MR. DAHL: I think the modifier here is important.
18 It ' s got to be and your code says, in fact let me get it,
19 because that ' s I assume the point of your question,
20 institution as it is written in the zoning code . The way the
21 zoning code lists it is in all caps "HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES,
22 AND MENTAL OR PHYSICAL REHABILITATION CENTERS" . The
23 institutional language comes from I think the comp plan. But
24 when we ' re going to what applies here, which is the uses
25 listed in these C-Zones , they've got to say they' re mental or
154
1 physical rehabilitation centers . I believe that you have to
2 read that whole sentence together, "Hospitals, nursing homes,
3 and mental or physical rehabilitation centers" and to me that
4 conjures up the hospitals and related facilities, activities
5 or institutions or for lack of a better term, businesses that
6 provide those services primarily if not exclusively. It
7 doesn' t conjure up, for example, an employee fitness center in
8 the Gates Rubber Company plant, which fitness center has all
9 of the equipment, which fitness center has a doctor and a
10 psychiatrist and a nurse on duty. No. What I 'm saying is
11 that the Gates Rubber Company plant that happens to have the
12 employee wellness center with all these people on staff is not
13 what is meant, I believe in the zoning code here, as a
14 physical rehabilitation center. I think it ' s the Gates Rubber
15 Company plant and it should be classified for zoning purposes
16 with respect to what they' re making - tires, or whatever it
17 is .
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Then maybe you could define
19 rehabilitation center. I mean I know they made an attempt at
20 it, and I guess I 'd like to hear what yours is .
21 MR. DAHL: There are any number of them. They say
22 mental or physical . To me, it ' s a center that offers that as
23 its primary product. And I believe also that it ' s non-
24 coercive. I don' t think that you ' re sentenced to a mental or
25 physical rehabilitation center. It ' s, you know, all we have
155
1 is the language of the code, but it does control and it ' s a
2 real fair question to ask, well what is a physical or mental
3 rehabilitation center? Could this be it? I really mean it
4 when I say that what I think you each have to do is decide
5 that the rehabilitation aspect of any use presented is so
6 overwhelming as to become the use, and I don' t believe that ' s
7 true here. I don' t believe that ' s true here even close, even
8 close. This is going to be a part of the state correctional
9 system, and inmates are serving time there and they may or may
10 not get a full course of rehabilitation as the applicant has
11 admitted. The rehabilitation center argument Mr. Brand
12 described in front of the Planning Commission in this room a
13 couple months ago as his fall-back. It ' s more important to
14 him now. But I still believe that the heart of the question
15 you ' re asking Commissioner is, for me is, does the
16 rehabilitation work of this thing envelope everything else
17 such that it' s prison aspect is really kind of incidental and
18 accessory? I don' t think those two fences and the guards and
19 the fact that these are inmates serving time before they are
20 released are incidental . I think that they are the main
21 reason and I think that helping people readjust to the
22 outside, while a really important prison function here, is a
23 prison function in this context. It' s not a rehabilitation
24 function where I can go with an auto injury, go to a
25 rehabilitation center and get my knee working again.
156
1 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: I realize it ' s a matter of
2 semantics really, but I like asking questions of lawyers . Is
3 there any way that you can, you are getting to the point of
4 that they are definitely imprisoned. Is there any way you
5 could characterize pre-parole in your own mind as early
6 restricted release in any way? That they are restricted to
7 the fact that they have to go to this facility, but they are
8 actually released?
9 MR. DAHL: I don' t think so. For a couple of
10 reasons . Just from listening to the applicants this morning.
11 It' s a lock-down facility. There' s no real release aspect of
12 this facility at all, and in fact that ' s terrifically
13 important to the applicants and they've made that point to you
14 many times in the last seven hours . You know, don ' t worry.
15 These people never get out. And what' s the phrase they've
16 used? No escapes . You don' t escape if you' re released
17 already. You know, I just, I 'm using semantics too, but that
18 was the basis of your question and in really thinking about
19 it, no. No, I really do not believe that this is a release or
20 early release. There are way too many indicia of security,
21 which are terrifically important to the applicant to reassure
22 you that the place will be safe. You can' t have that one both
23 ways . They' re still in jail .
24 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any other questions of
25 Mr. Dahl? Okay, I guess we will begin to call your list of
157
1 speakers . We will follow the same process that we had a while
2 ago. I will call two names . The first one will speak and the
3 second one, if you will be available to speak next . The first
4 one is Dennis Tomline and the second one is Kathy Neiley.
5 MR. TOMLINE : Good evening, my name is Dennis
6 Tomline . I 'm vice president of a company called Specialty
7 Products and I 'm here to speak against the proposal .
8 Specialty Products has made a large investment in Weld County
9 and that can be seen by our recent building of our facility
10 which is over 40, 000 square feet. We also employ 39 people.
11 Actually it isn' t real recent, it' s going on four years now.
12 We would not have probably built a prison in this particular
13 area, or a building in this particular area, had we known a
14 prison was going to be built. We are interested in the growth
15 in the area and this can be seen by us working together with
16 the Weld County Chamber and the Longmont Chamber and holding
17 an open house which we had about two years ago. We feel that
18 a prison will scare people away and detract future growth from
19 the area, which is what nobody wants to see. We are here now,
20 we don' t plan on going anywhere, but we want to protect our
21 investment.
22 We also have some concerns about the people visiting
23 these people, coming down the highway, seeing a nice facility
24 on the side of the road. Even though the Weld County Sheriff
25 Department does an excellent job, who' s to say that they could
158
1 be there in the length of time that it would take to respond
2 to a call . That is a concern to us . And we also have some
3 employees who work late and their safety is an important
4 issue.
5 Thirdly, and my last point, is the interchange
6 that ' s been brought up -- 119 and I-25 . We combat the traffic
7 mess there on a daily basis and in the summer it' s real bad.
8 And we think and have talked to the State Highway Department
9 and it appears that any major improvements that would improve
10 that are well down the road. And if this facility were to be
11 granted permission to be built, we feel it will add to the
12 additional traffic mess in that area. Any questions?
13 CHAIRMAN HARBERT: Are there any questions for Mr.
14 Tomline?
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I would just add the
16 interchange on Highway 119 and I-25 is due to be constructed
17 within the next two years, and I think they've put $10 million
18 dollars towards the project; $2 million in 1994 and the
19 remainder $8 million would be in 1995 . And that is in the
20 State Transportation Improvement Plan and it is purported to
21 happen within the next two years .
22 MR. TOMLINE: Could that be postponed or canceled
23 like it has in the past?
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: At this point, no, they've
25 already done some of the preliminary engineering, E and A' s
159
Hello