The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About931388.tiff o IOCT 0 1 1993 Weld County Planning To: Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of Commissioners Reference: Case # 344, A Site Specific Development Plan and A P.U.D. Plan (Ft. Junction, First Filing) From: The Villa at Greeley, Inc . , Applicant Date: September 30, 1993 The following are illustrative, specific examples showing how the development of correctional facilities effects : - Compatability with adjacent land uses - Development of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses on adjacent properties - Land values of adjacent properties, and - Community safety issues . 1 . Larimer County Detention Center. The Larimer County Detention Center is located in Ft. Collins , on Prospect Road, approximately one mile West of Interstate 25 . The facility was built in 1983 . This facility holds 273 inmates including approximately 35 State Department of Corrections inmates, as well as prisoners awaiting trial on all types of criminal charges having occurred in Larimer County. This detention center is approximately 120, 000 square feet, and employs 110 staff on an around the clock basis . Subsequent to the Larimer County Detention Center being built, considerable development has occurred on immediately adjacent properties . A brochure is attached, describing the Prospect East Commercial/Industrial Park. The large building shown on the left hand side of the development map shown on the brochure, surrounded by development, is the Larimer County Detention Center. As shown on the map, approximately 400, 000 square feet of commercial/industrial development has occurred after the detention facility was constructed. Prospect East is 100% occupied, and the value of the property continues to rise. According to the developer, there have been no safety or "image" concerns resulting from the detention facility. In fact, one of Prospect East ' s selling points is the free, built in security system provided by the traffic generated by law enforcement and security staff . Included in the Prospect East Business Park is a child day care 931388 gc,1249 46 center, which is immediately adjacent to the detention facility, and the District Offices of the Girl Scouts of America. 2 . High Plains Detention Center. The High Plains Detention Center is located in Brush, Colorado, on the North frontage road of I-76 . High Plains is a 157 bed juvenile detention facility, which serves juveniles from across the nation, primarily juveniles who have been determined to be unmanageable in their local facilities . Members of the High Plains Advisory Board, which consists of community members who oversee the operations of the facility, and serve as community liaisons, state that the facility is a successful, non-intrusive land use in their community. Adjacent to the High Plains Detention Center is Mohrlang Manufacturing, and the Brush School District Offices, neither of whom have any concerns regarding this facility. 3 . The Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) , Florence, CO The Federal Government has just completed a 2700 inmate correctional complex, ranging from Minimum to Super-Maximum security. The complex is located just South of Florence. Immediately adjacent to this complex, a new motel was just constructed. The billboard in front of the Motel states "Welcome FCI Visitors" . Land values have increased in the area, resultant from projects such as Bear Paw, which is a new development for a planned residential retirement and golf course community. Bear Paw is located one-half mile North of the Federal Correctional Institution. 4 . Boulder County Jail . The Boulder County Jail is located in the Northeast quadrant of the City of Boulder. It is a 103, 400 square foot facility housing 357 inmates, built in 1988, and has 109 staff . Since the construction of the jail, the Lake Center Industrial Park has developed, including two projects just being completed: Synergen, and Particle Measurements, each of which are approximately 40, 000 square feet. Two blocks West of the Boulder County Jail is Noble Park, a medium density residential development of 140 single family homes . The Noble Park development began at approximately the same time the Boulder County Jail was being constructed, and is now in its final phase of home construction. The developer of Noble Park states that the County Jail has not deterred nor detracted from this development. In 1988, the median price of homes in Noble Park was $150, 000 . The median price in this development is now $230 , 000 . 90.1249 ?4:^5.7,0 .f t yy eF 6 e w ",‘,1‘‘' '' 4 @ 4k?'''�u�t F'�{{@' ". "ai,2',: i kiri; i� AC< U �A '1i��y i ¢¢ �i '" Aeii ,. e j4a , ;1 '44 ti'{ JJ 71f• 'y i j k Kt 1;.d..:;i.lel'Si v1i c {l ' fir , I a ,n l �i • it ! }, i i - d Df 9,� R U\ °`� �} AjC J 'TS tit 1 x. I7 �.� "tit "Uk 0141a TrIE (kJ, COMPANIES 12,9 1 PROSPECT EAST 1 II� scale I( _ l loll o ro. 2O30' 60' Corporate Headquarters Prospect East is home to corporate headquarters of nth two of the most rapidly growing and successful companies in Fort Collins. Advanced Energy is the world's leading manufacturer of process power supplies for the thin film industry. �/ Vipont Pharmaceuticals is a leader in the oral hygiene '. field. t Both Advanced Energy and Vipont have benefited from the investment in their success by the W.W. Reynolds Companies. ‘ErVANCED* ccr:a i *LAKE '. dA"'� -- 'RGY aV CENTER . q wi. ONE ,- a :--. / • iC s - ,2 tw y� v ,t -. ; ® t c "t• 32 `.." .t tir v' 29 .a-. _ a6 s 34� � , !UM THE 1 RIVER CENTER _-_ Y i e+ PLAZ. ,� . .., ` 1t 'itF�rasrr' Transportation Committed to Success Prospect Park East is conveniently located near the At W.W. Reynolds, we have committed ourselves to hub of Fort Collins.Adjacent to Interstate 25,it affords the success of the companies located at Prospect Park easy access to either Denver or Cheyenne within an East.Let us be committed to yours as well.Join us in hour.Rail lines and the Fort Collins Downtown Airport the most supportive business atmosphere available. are also nearby. Anywhere. :: 931249 To: Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Board of Commissioners From: Michael Brand, Corrections Director The Villa at Greeley, Inc. Date: October 4, 1993 RE: Ft. Junction PUD First Filing/Final Plan The purpose of this letter is to succinctly outline The Villa at Greeley, Inc . ' s full compliance with all applicable requirements and conditions established in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and by Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Section 28 . 13 . 1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance states that "The Planning Commission shall recommend approval of the request of the Planned Unit Development Plan unless it finds that the applicant has not met one or more of the applicable requirements or conditions of section 28 . 9, 28 . 11 . 1 . and 28 . 13 . . " The zoning ordinance goes on to state that the applicant has the burden of proof to show that the above standards and conditions are met. Compliance with 28 . 9 requirements are outlined in the application section "P.U.D. Procedural Guide Application Requirements" , numbers 1 through 29 , as described in zoning ordinance and Weld County Department of Planning Services ' expectations . Supporting attachments follow. All required architectural and engineers ' maps and drawings required under Section 28 . 11 are complete, and are submitted as part of the application. There are no utility or infrastructure concerns related to this application. 9 -1249 In addition to the information included in the PUD Development Plan, the following further demonstrates the applicant ' s compliance with requirements as outlined under section 28 . 13 of the Weld County Zoning Regulations : 28 . 13 . 1 . 1 "That the proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. " In regard to the I-25 mixed use development area, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan states that "the district allows residential, commercial, and institutional uses to occur after they have been reviewed and approved according to the P. U.D. application process. The P. U.D. process is an approach which promotes freedom, flexibility, and creativity. " In the absence of definition of the term "institutional" as permitted use in this M.U.D. area, a dictionary definition is relied upon. According to Random House College Dictionary, institution is defined as "3 . a place of confinement, as a prison, mental hospital, etc . " Webster ' s defines institutionalism as "2 . public institutional care of defective, delinquent, or dependent persons . " Webster ' s defines delinquent as " 1 . offending by violation of duty or law. " The applicant asserts that the proposed land usage, a preparole release facility, is defined as an institution, and is therefore an allowable use in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area, as described in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 9;1249 28 . 13 . 1 . 2 "That the Planned Unit Development Plan conforms to the local PUD District in which it is proposed to be located. " The existing PUD district is current and approved for commercial/industrial land use as follows : I-1 , 10 acres, 215, 000 square feet. C-i through C-4, 22 acres, 470, 000 square feet . Basically, the Ft. Junction PUD District allows for all levels of Commercial development, as well as light Industrial. The applicant has submitted a PUD plan for 123, 000 square feet on 22 + acres within the District. The applicant asserts that its proposed land usage in Case Number S-344 meets a commercial definition as described in Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Although "correctional" or "prerelease" facilities are not specifically named in ordinance, the applicant, as have many previous applicants , relies on Weld County Ordinance 5 . 10 "All Uses Allowed by Right, Temporary Uses, and Uses by Special Review listed in this Ordinance are representative and are not all inclusive. " Additionally, Ordinance 33 . 4 . 1 . does state: "Intent of the C-3 District. To establish and preserve areas for activities which provide goods or services for the benefit of the general public or which require large amounts of space or high traffic volumes for generating business. " That a preparole facility requires large amounts of space is clear in that the building is relatively large, _ and adequate spatial and landscape buffering is desirable, as shown in the PUD Plan Application. That the land usage provides services for the 9a1249 benefit of the general public is irrefutable, and is best described in the enabling legislation, co-sponsored by local legislators Senator Norton and Representative Jerke. This legislation concludes with the statement "The General Assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety. " There is a Use Allowed By Right in a C-2 District (and then, C-3 District) for "Hospitals, nursing homes, and mental or physical rehabilitation centers " (Ordinance 33 . 3 . 2 . 11 ) . Hospital is defined in ordinance as "Any institution receiving inpatients and rendering medical, surgical, psychiatric, or obstetrical care for humans to include general hospitals and specialized institutions. " The applicant is not asserting that the prerelease facility is a hospital in the classic sense. However, it is clear that the proposed facility is a specialized institution that will render medical and psychiatric services in its normal course of operations . As required by the state, nursing staff will be on duty on a daily basis, and a physician clinic will be conducted three times per week. Psychiatric services will also be provided, as necessary. The applicant, however, does assert that the prerelease center is a rehabilitation facility, as allowed by Ordinance. In the absence of a specific definition of "Rehabilitation" being contained in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, the term is assigned its ordinary, contemporary meaning, per Ordinance 5 . 9 . Rehabilitation is defined by Webster' s as : " 1 . to restore or bring to a state of health or useful and purposeful activity, as 9j1249 through training or therapy. " As previously described, the prerelease center' s operational and programmatic elements are rehabilitative by definition. Beyond medical and psychiatric services being provided, the program elements encompassing six hours per day are clearly rehabilitative in nature. The prerelease center will serve clients who "have significant, yet manageable physical or mental health limitations through functional mental health counseling" , as described in The Villa ' s proposal to the state. The major purpose and intent of the prerelease center is provide rehabilitative programmatic elements directed toward the smooth and safe transition of incarcerated individuals to supervised release within their own communities . Program components such as Chemical Dependency, Relapse Prevention, Education, Cognitive Restructuring, Taking Responsibility, Interpersonal Skills, Family Relationships, Health and Wellness, Anger and Stress Management, Domestic Violence, etc. clearly define the operations of this prerelease center as a "Rehabilitation Center" as allowed by Weld County Zoning Ordinance in a C-2 or C-3 District. 9;1443;. :, GORSUCH, KIRGIS,CAMPBELL,WALKER AND GROVER ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1100 1401 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202-9624 MAILING ADDRESS P. 0. BOX 17180 DENVER,COLORADO 80217-0180 TELEPHONE (3031299-8900 FAX(3031298-0215 GERALD E. DAHL October 5, 1993 Weld County Planning Commission Administrative Offices 1460 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Case No. S-344 The Villa at Geeley Inc. Members of the Commission: This letter supplements the letter I presented the Commission on September 27 , 1993 . On behalf of my client, the Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County, I request that both letters be made a part of the record in this case. ACTION REQUESTED The Concerned Citizens urge the Commission to recommend denial of the application until such time as the underlying PUD district has been amended to allow prison uses. The process of amending the PUD district will best serve the interests of the County, its residents, the local community and the Applicant, as all parties consider whether a prison is appropriate in this area. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL 1. The Fort Junction PUD District has been abandoned. The original PUD district was approved in early 1989 . The Weld County Zoning Ordinance requires the landowner to either (1) present a PUD Plan application within one year of the PUD district GED\99998\71056-1 IXHIBIT N I ! I T ' 901249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 2 approval, or (2) present evidence "substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned . . ." Section 28. 15. 5. My review of the file has disclosed that this annual requirement was not fulfilled by the landowner in 1990, in 1991, or in 1992. The present PUD Plan application was filed over four (4) years after the PUD district was approved. 2. Prison uses were not contemplated at the time the Fort Junction PUD District Plan was approved. This issue is fundamental in the case. No one can honestly maintain that the 1988 rezoning contemplated a prison. I have reviewed the file approving the Fort Junction PUD District. No mention of prison uses is made anywhere in that record. The church applicant in 1989 had various plans for a church or school. In fact, as discussed below, it was the intention of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners at that time that only the specific listed uses in the C-1 through C-4 and I-1 zones were to be allowed as a part of the Fort Junction PUD District rezoning. 3. Prison uses are not permitted by the Fort Junction PUD District. a. The BOCC Resolution The March 8, 1989 resolution of the Board of County Commissioners approving the Ft. Junction PUD is very specific with respect to the uses granted by that rezoning: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application . . . for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to Planned Unit Development (C-1, C-2 , C-3, C-4 and I-1) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, and one oil and gas production facility site on the above- referenced parcel of land be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following conditions: (emphasis supplied) The phraseology employed by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in designating the "uses as listed" in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance was to incorporate those uses specifically listed in the C-1 through C-4 and I-1 districts. A PUD plan may not be approved for a use not listed in the District. GED\99998\71056.1 9C1249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 3 The Zoning Ordinance allows the applicant for PUD district rezoning to request the specific use desired; however, no request for prison or correctional facility uses is made here. b. The Commercial Districts The C-1 through C-4 district use descriptions all include the offering of "goods and services to the public, " and contain detailed lists of allowed uses in each category Zoning Ordinance, Sections 33.2 ; 33 .3 ; 33 .4 ; 33 .5; 34.2 . These descriptions do not include or contemplate prison uses. "Prison, " "preparole" or "correctional facility" do not appear as allowed uses in any of the C-1 through C-4 or I-1 zones. The requirement of the 1989 BOCC resolution is that such uses be listed to be allowed. Colorado follows the general rule of statutory interpretation that laws which specify certain situations must be construed to exclude situations not specified. Truck Insurance Exchange v. Home Insurance Company, 481 P.2d 354 (Colo. App. 1992) ; Meyer v. Charnes, 705 P. 2d 93 (Colo. App. 1992) . This rule has been applied in the zoning context, where a zoning statute or ordinance specifies certain uses, unlisted uses are excluded. Cox v. Prince George's County, 586 A.2d 43 (Md 1991) . The Weld County Zoning Ordinance specifically lists allowed uses in its Commercial zones. Prison uses are not listed in those zones, and are therefore excluded. The lists do include police and fire stations, but the present application does not qualify for that category, even by analogy. The applicant is a for-profit corporation offering prison services, not to the general public. Police and fire stations are operated by local governments or special districts, and provide services to the general public. From the perspective of use compatibility, a prison bears no resemblance to a police or fire station: the public and neighborhood safety aspects of the two uses could not be more different. c. PUD District Requirements PUD district rezoning requires each PUD district to recite the uses allowed in that district. Uses in a PUD Plan application "must be identical to those located and described on the Planned Unit Development District plat. " Section 28.9. The proposed use is not even listed in the referenced zones; the applicant can hardly claim that the proposed use is "identical" to such a listed and zoned use. The applicant must demonstrate that its proposed use is identical to one shown on that plat. The plat, in turn, GED\99998\71056.1 931249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 4 recites merely "C-1 - C-4 , " and "I-1. " Planned development is not a catch-all for injecting into a neighborhood a use which would otherwise not be allowed. Ford Leasing Development Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 186 Colo. 418, 528 P.2d 237, 240 (1974) . The Zoning Ordinance requires genuine specificity when uses are allowed in a PUD zone. There is an important public policy reason for requiring PUD plan applications to be only for those uses allowed by the underlying zoning. Failing to do so, as is here proposed, denies residents the due process protections of the rezoning process, as described below. 4. Processing a PUD plan application for a use not allowed in the underlying PUD district denies due process of law. It is important to establish at the outset that the final PUD plan application under consideration in this case is not an application for rezoning. A rezoning application would be subject to notice and hearing requirements which the applicant has not satisfied in this case. For the county to treat this PUD plan application for a non-listed use in this zone district as a final plan application is to deny residents of the county due process of law and to render the actions of the county void. The members of the Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County, along with all residents of the County, have a constitutional right to due process of law. Due process "require[s] an opportunity for property owners to be heard before ordinances which substantially affect their property rights are adopted. " Board of County Comm'rs v. City of Thornton, 629 P.2d 605, 611 (Colo. 1981) (citations omitted) . The value and use of the property owned by these residents of Weld County will be substantially impacted by the proposed development. See id. at 609 (recognizing that property owners have a legally protected interest in insulating their property from adverse effects caused by legally deficient zoning determinations concerning nearby property) . Treating the application as a final PUD Plan, rather than requiring rezoning, offends my clients' constitutional right to due process, as well as the same rights held by all residents of the County. The PUD rezoning process provides the public with an opportunity for notice and hearing. The expedited plan approval process does not. GED\99998\71056.1 901249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 5 Because the 1989 approval of this PUD District listed only use classifications which do not include any prison or correctional facilities, the notice provided to the public concerning the PUD zoning in 1989 could not and did not include notice of use of the involved property as a prison. Notice which does not mention the use involved fails to sufficiently warn all persons whose rights might be affected by the proposed action. See Fedder v. McCurdy, 768 P. 2d 711, 714 (Colo. App. 1988) . There was no public testimony at the hearing held by this Commission on the PUD application in 1989. This is because no one was given notice that a prison facility would be allowed on the property as a consequence of the rezoning. No one can seriously believe that, had the application for PUD zoning in 1989 included prison uses in the list of uses approved, there would have been no public testimony? Colorado courts have recognized the importance of the constitutional protections afforded the public through the public notice and hearing requirements for rezoning. Treatment of a request for an unpermitted use as anything less than a request for rezoning has been interpreted as an intolerable attempt to sidestep the normal processes required for rezoning, such as detailed notice requirements and study by the staff and planning commission. Murray v. Board of Adjustment, Larimer County, 42 Colo. App. 113, 594 P.2d 596, 597 (1979) . The Application seeks a use not permitted in C-1 through C-4 or I-1. This is not simply a request for PUD approval. In effect, this application seeks rezoning. To proceed on this Application as though the requested use was a permitted use is to deny the concerned public due process. The entity responsible for zoning must, in the exercise of its police powers, afford procedural due process as delineated in its zoning code. McArthur v. Zabka, 177 Colo. 377, 494 P. 2d 89, 93 (1972) . Residents of the County have a right to rely upon the Weld County Zoning Ordinances and to rely on the fact that zoning of the land in their neighborhood will not be changed absent substantial reasons therefor. Fedder v. McCurdy, 768 P. 2d 711, 713 (Colo. App. 1988) (citing Holly Dev't Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 140 Colo. 95, 342 P.2d 1032 (1959) ) . Processing this application for an unpermitted use would violate the County's own procedures. From the standpoint of due process, property owners have the right to proceed upon the assumption that the governing body will follow the dictates of the ordinances concerning zoning. McArthur v. Zabka, 494 P. 2d at 93 . A legislative body is bound to follow the regulations it has adopted and, when the governmental body fails to follow the zoning GED\99998\71056.1 901249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 6 ordinances or its own established procedures when engaging in rezoning, it is violating the requirements of due process. See Miller v. City of Albuquerque, 554 P.2d 665, 668-69 (N.M. 1976) . To process an application to develop a non-permitted prison use in the district denies Weld County residents due process of law by ignoring the requirements of the Zoning Code established for their protection. The proper procedure, which would provide due process, is to require an application under Section 28. 15. 1 to amend the district to add prisons as an allowed use, then to resubmit the current application. 5. The application impermissibly proposes an amendment to the 1989 plat. As a condition of the Planning Commission's approval and the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the Fort Junction PUD in 1989, the following plat note was required (and does appear) on the Fort Junction PUD District plat: a. Prior to recording a PUD plan plat, a law enforcement authority shall be formed according to State Law. The law enforcement authority to be formed shall be capable of expanding to serve other areas within the I-25 MUD area to avoid duplication of overhead and other operating costs. This plat requirement was based, in turn, upon a Memorandum from the Weld County Sheriff dated December 20, 1988. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The Memorandum states, in pertinent part: It will be our request that the New Creation Fort Junction development form an LEA or join the LEA created by the Crossroads Development if it is created first. We also request that whatever LEA is formed first, all other Del Camino area development be required to join, regardless of zoning, due to the significant concentration of resources occurring at Del Camino. This area is literally becoming an unincorporated city that will demand far more resources than will be GED\99998\71056.1 9C1249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 7 available under conventional county mill levys. (emphasis supplied) The applicant has (admittedly) not fulfilled this condition and instead claims that the County Sheriff has changed his mind and that an LEA is no longer necessary. However, neither the applicant nor the Sheriff can unilaterally or cooperatively amend the Fort Junction PUD District plat. The Ft. Junction plat requires the formation of an LEA prior to the approval of an application for any development in the Ft. Junction PUD. The plat note was established as part of rezoning process. It may not be eliminated by the Commission or the Board of County Commissioners as a part of the (current) PUD plan approval process. No notice has been given to the public of any request to amend the Ft. Junction plat by deleting a requirement. Such notice is required to afford due process. A review of the file has confirmed that no plat amendment application or process has been initiated. Until this has been done, or the LEA has been formed as the plat note requires, the County is without power to approve a final PUD application for any portion of the Fort Junction PUD District. 6. The proposed prison use is incompatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and with the affected community. The subject property lies within the Firestone/Frederick/ Dacono Urban Growth Boundary. (Comprehensive Plan, page 32 . ) The tri-area commission has unanimously recommended that the applica- tion be denied. This recommendation should be given weight by this Commission. (Comprehensive Plan, page 34 , para. C. ) Rather than "not objecting" to this land use application, the Longmont Planning Director, stated that "I understand that the proposed land use is consistent with the PUD and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . " As described above, the proposed prison land use is not permitted in this PUD; the Concerned Citizens further believe that it is inconsistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is listed for commercial use in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Conceptual Land Use Plan. (Comprehensive Plan, page 46. ) One policy of the I-25 PUD Area is that new development "demonstrate compatibility with existing surrounding land use . . " (Comprehensive Plan, page 49, para. 5. ) The Concerned Citizens feel strongly that the proposed prison is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Evidence of this incompatibility is already present in the record before the Commission: GED\99998\71056.1 9a1249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 8 a. Field check dated September 7, 1993: "This is in a highly-populated area because of all of the different businesses located to the west, because of kinds of businesses, this is an area where people come and go a lot. " b. Letters from homeowners in the neighborhood, expressing concern with the compatibility of the use and the safety risks associated with inmates and visitors to the facility: (1) September 21, 1993: Roy M. Finnis (2) September 21, 1993 : Terry and Jane Sprouse (3) June 17 , 1993 : Mary and Alvin Mengel (4) June 8, 1993: Vivian and Bob Konkle (5) June 9, 1993 : Paul and Tammy Thompson (6) June 1, 1993: Marvin and Sharon Hopper, and others (7) June 11, 1993 : David Koehler and (8) June 8, 1993: Frank Canepa. c. A People's Petition signed by over 1, 400 residents of Southwest Weld County has been filed in opposition to the project and is in your packets. d. The Concerned Citizens will provide extensive testimony on this point. As part of its presentation to you today, the Concerned Citizens will present witnesses on the following subjects: (a) Nature of the expected prison population and capacity of the applicant to safely conduct that operation; (b) Concerns of business owners in the Del Camino area with respect to the economic impact of the proposed operation on their businesses, as well as the safety and welfare of their employees and customers. GED\99998\71056.1 924.249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 9 (c) Concerns of neighboring communities, as expressed by various community leaders; (d) Neighborhood concerns relating to safety and compatibility, as expressed by individual residents and homeowners in the affected community. 7. The application does not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Planned development applications must meet all the standards and procedures set forth in the planned development ordinance. Ford Leasing Development Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, Colo. 528 P.2d 237, 240 (1974) . The Weld County Zoning Ordinance sets out detailed requirements for a complete PUD plan application at Sections 28.9, 28 . 10 and 28.11. The present application fails to satisfy these requirements, either in scope or detail. In many instances, the applicant has simply copied general data submitted in 1988 for the PUD district application. As we know, the 1988 application neither mentioned nor contemplated a prison; data from that date is of little relevance to the present prison application. One of the submission requirements is an "off-site road improvements agreement proposal. " Section 28.9.1.7 . The applicant has submitted one such proposed agreement. However, at Exhibit 9 to the application, the applicant takes the position that no off- site road improvements are necessary. This is not consistent with the position of the Colorado Department of Transportation as found in Theresa G. Jones' letter on behalf of DOT to Keith Schuett, dated September 17, 1993 . That letter provides, in pertinent part: It should be noted by both the County and the owners of the Fort Junction property that although the Department has clearly committed to the construction of the newly-aligned frontage road, we have not made a commitment to construct auxiliary lanes which are necessary to serve development along the state highway, as would be required by the State Highway Access Code. . The issue of who constructs that [right [right thru decel] lane remains to be resolved. (emphasis supplied. ) GED\99998\71056.1 9010:49 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 10 I am currently pursuing resolution of the Department's position. It must be noted that if our position is that the lanes made necessary by development must be constructed or guaranteed by the property owner, the State Highway Access Permit required for construction of access from the frontage road must include those plans, along with a full description of the construction stating which will occur. The letter goes on to indicate that there appears to be a "borderline" need for a left deceleration lane. These issues are not addressed in the proposed Off-site Improvements Agreement submitted by the applicant. CONCLUSION The applicant in this case has the burden of proof with respect to all six (6) of the criteria in Section 28 . 13 . 1. This letter and the presentation of the Concerned Citizens on October 5 will demonstrate that the applicant cannot meet that burden: § 28.13.1. 1: The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. § 28. 13. 1.2 : The PUD Plan applied for does not conform to the PUD district in which it is located (prison use not allowed) . § 28. 13.1.3: The prison use applied for is not compatible with the surrounding area as demonstrated by the County Comprehensive Plan and local planning agencies. § 28. 13. 1.5: The application does not comply with the relevant overlay District requirement. (Section 54. 3 : Use Permitted - prison use not permitted in the Fort Junction PUD district. ) § 28.13.1. 6: The application fails to satisfy the submittal requirements for a proper PUD Plan. The Concerned Citizens urge the Commission to recommend denial of the application for the reasons described. GED\99998\71056.1 9u1249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 11 Yours truly, GORSUCH, KIRGIS, CAMPBELL, ER AND GROV Gerald E. Dahl GED:nc cc: Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County GED\99998\71056.1 9x1249 Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County EXHIBITS No. Description 1. Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, March 8, 1989. 2 . Ft. Junction PUD District Plat, recorded February 13 , 1990. 3. Memorandum from Office of the Weld County Sheriff, December 20, 1988 . 4 . Letters submitted to Weld County and identified at p 5 of Dahl October 5 letter. 5. People's Petition. GED\51615\71847.1 p r� p 921249 izil1 a- • ( t,Q \ :,.. l. 1 �� III z r �. 4aI' I__Ms: CP ,____,.. 4" hi ' i!A , [ Raa a a7asa 6�a7 a� 1 R i i p !IF I I FE I o _. o r= _.bya__g{r� ,�y),ey t"'1,� .-----------"'V � I C I�I ? S t�E�; a �•�—'°+ .06•.9$ 3 60.91.69$ R— k g tot b \- h g g ��lq-- I j.!L bhb h ca I ti I k$ 11 Wgu N N • > pI ^ '1,a r;/ ty Q I !:u fhpri 2 nit r1`.w yW ,°' t QQQ9 ki 'sit 4I i I In Q 1,, 3O3 a -� 90 !III si O4. I i. `� Y �. ,l , 9' 1 1� U Et , !11 1i11't _ ` 2 d ? a 1111 S g�! ' I H EeEE! oE;I !{'11 w;' i I I 1 s t £ j. i,. w,_ .BO'f$L x'.60.9>.6B H' Y$0: i' • j1i1 gFe 1,- I /' m j °W .�' “_LL J t: p �// 1 I I y =ra .1 I '\� �..-!.........0. 50 � 5°°i _�_iG \,. , an 9Ep`!14 ii !3a ai 4 lIft ,..-___-_,,,,..--..,-...;,„ii i� �� hg i 100, h! c!% , aIy 935 'ti !1 tsq ₹ ` 1` ( ' :r I =11 j€i i..ij ii II N � i . on! in 1914!0,1414(1 hi IMg. �F& Co ��/i� \',1 7yy UPI l! 'ii i s'1° Y • e III \\ `1 a.!it ! } it( 1! I11 i II#Ii{ r_ Fii • — _\ 1'qL.... i! l IIII ill Il!it- I.5,P-! _ _1 1_ S.. j9 C..E_. 1i 1Iii 11 11,1 ' ,!1f • t::: "� aflIi,li 3I}! !ii f li 113 lisle! • i�l A 1I11: It!tlil 1}I!Iei '1 IP { II, zz az 1 z a , I.: i k :ii 111:11 ii II I I I I ` ji ii!1 !; 11!1 +!r!jii is3 i `1 air 3 !i I I I -- t —� 3i. !JI {_� �[A1�_ �— s !bl. II °W i ip`5z ll!li i! :'i 1i i! iz zEiii' _AV 99;99:5.iiz 1! 9119 iii i!a1 lliri111 a :5I . • li I iii ill 9 IJ I1II .1l: I13 '! ! I I �_ —� I' !!I I yaelI I ! . 1CAlll.ii = iia : : g W I I '�._—�� in t; l 1 x !It Iii .971.71'II " 3 !. ._ i . 2 Al ( � I� I ii�lp 11.)i.f:_l' fif g IIR1IEI 1file i t; ill `1"`-"" i tai !9� ' •" =ii �l '°° t 1 i3 S a- d —_ II I III I ≥! ° °II III iii If iIli I "` _ ------ -- .I!) !ii :i I! IH III IiII� Rs! li I li li I I it ---w --= ,.--_ .7x.r:ars ---_ --p 2g 14 Z/l 62 Od0!/.(1N/)03 073M 9M1 S/X3J l ! �, d 735./L44 W1 NNZ �s ,ygA y"b • �_rr,,...LLL yaii �ORit'°� �Y 5 / 3w I / • 1 OFFICE ( OF THE C iNERIF MEMORANDUM TO Plnnni^g FROM 1M Tardan DATE 1 2ORR RE rim Raquact I have reviewed the PDD request by New Creation Ministries for the northeast corner of CR 24 and I-25. There has been a similar request for the southeast corner involving over 200 acres and potentially over 2,000 persons under the name of Crossroads, Del Camino, case number Z-447. It was our requirement that the development proposed in Z-447 be required to form a Law Enforcement. Authority because of the proposed substantial residential demand for resources. However, with this proposal, we no have an additional concern of highly concentrated commercial development in conjunction with substantial existing commercial development already present. It will be our request that the New Creation Fort Junction development form an LEA or join the LEA created by the Crossroads development if it is created first. We also request that whatever LEA is formed first, all other Del Camino area development be required to join, regardless of zoning, due to the significant concentration of resources occurring at Del Camino. This area is literally becoming an unincorporated city that will demand far more resources than will be available under conventional county mill levys. pAllii)1C*1T • DEC 2 1 1988 field Co. Plasmas sammission a 'EXHIBIT 3 t a; GORSUCH, KIRGIS,CAMPBELL,WALKER AND GROVER ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1100 1401 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202.9624 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 17180 DENVER, COLORADO 80217-0180 TELEPHONE (3031299-8900 FAX (303)298-0215 GERALD E. DAHL October 5, 1993 Weld County Planning Commission Administrative Offices 1460 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Case No. S-344 The Villa at Greeley Inc. Members of the Commission: This letter supplements the letter I presented the Commission on September 27, 1993 . On behalf of my client, the Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County, I request that both letters be made a part of the record in this case. ACTION REQUESTED The Concerned Citizens urge the Commission to recommend denial of the application until such time as the underlying PUD district has been amended to allow prison uses. The process of amending the PUD district will best serve the interests of the County, its residents, the local community and the Applicant, as all parties consider whether a prison is appropriate in this area. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL 1. The Fort Junction PUD District has been abandoned. The original PUD district was approved in early 1989 . The Weld County Zoning Ordinance requires the landowner to either (1) present a PUD Plan application within one year of the PUD district GED\99998\71056.1 p 9u1243 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 2 approval, or (2) present evidence "substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned . . " Section 28. 15. 5. My review of the file has disclosed that this annual requirement was not fulfilled by the landowner in 1990, in 1991, or in 1992 . The present PUD Plan application was filed over four (4) years after the PUD district was approved. 2 . Prison uses were not contemplated at the time the Fort Junction PUD District Plan was approved. This issue is fundamental in the case. No one can honestly maintain that the 1988 rezoning contemplated a prison. I have reviewed the file approving the Fort Junction PUD District. No mention of prison uses is made anywhere in that record. The church applicant in 1989 had various plans for a church or school. In fact, as discussed below, it was the intention of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners at that time that only the specific listed uses in the C-1 through C-4 and I-1 zones were to be allowed as a part of the Fort Junction PUD District rezoning. 3. Prison uses are not permitted by the Fort Junction PUD District. a. The BOCC Resolution The March 8, 1989 resolution of the Board of County Commissioners approving the Ft. Junction PUD is very specific with respect to the uses granted by that rezoning: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application . . . for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to Planned Unit Development (C-1, C-2 , C-3 , C-4 and I-1) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, and one oil and gas production facility site on the above- referenced parcel of land be, and hereby is, granted subject to the following conditions: (emphasis supplied) The phraseology employed by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in designating the "uses as listed" in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance was to incorporate those uses specifically listed in the C-1 through C-4 and I-1 districts. A PUD plan may not be approved for a use not listed in the District. GED\99998\77056.1 91249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 3 The Zoning Ordinance allows the applicant for PUD district rezoning to request the specific use desired; however, no request for prison or correctional facility uses is made here. b. The Commercial Districts The C-1 through C-4 district use descriptions all include the offering of "goods and services to the public, " and contain detailed lists of allowed uses in each category Zoning Ordinance, Sections 33 .2 ; 33 . 3 ; 33 .4 ; 33 . 5; 34 .2 . These descriptions do not include or contemplate prison uses. "Prison, " "preparole" or "correctional facility" do not appear as allowed uses in any of the C-1 through C-4 or I-1 zones. The requirement of the 1989 BOCC resolution is that such uses be listed to be allowed. Colorado follows the general rule of statutory interpretation that laws which specify certain situations must be construed to exclude situations not specified. Truck Insurance Exchange v. Home Insurance Company, 481 P. 2d 354 (Colo. App. 1992) ; Meyer v. Charnes, 705 P. 2d 93 (Colo. App. 1992) . This rule has been applied in the zoning context, where a zoning statute or ordinance specifies certain uses, unlisted uses are excluded. Cox v. Prince George's County, 586 A. 2d 43 (Md 1991) . The Weld County Zoning Ordinance specifically lists allowed uses in its Commercial zones. Prison uses are not listed in those zones, and are therefore excluded. The lists do include police and fire stations, but the present application does not qualify for that category, even by analogy. The applicant is a for-profit corporation offering prison services, not to the general public. Police and fire stations are operated by local governments or special districts, and provide services to the general public. From the perspective of use compatibility, a prison bears no resemblance to a police or fire station: the public and neighborhood safety aspects of the two uses could not be more different. c. PUD District Requirements PUD district rezoning requires each PUD district to recite the uses allowed in that district. Uses in a PUD Plan application "must be identical to those located and described on the Planned Unit Development District plat. " Section 28.9. The proposed use is not even listed in the referenced zones; the applicant can hardly claim that the proposed use is "identical" to such a listed and zoned use. The applicant must demonstrate that its proposed use is identical to one shown on that plat. The plat, in turn, GED\99998\71056.1 9a1249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 4 recites merely "C-1 - C-4 , " and "I-1. " Planned development is not a catch-all for injecting into a neighborhood a use which would otherwise not be allowed. Ford Leasing Development Co. v. Board of County Commis, 186 Colo. 418, 528 P.2d 237 , 240 (1974) . The Zoning Ordinance requires genuine specificity when uses are allowed in a PUD zone. There is an important public policy reason for requiring PUD plan applications to be only for those uses allowed by the underlying zoning. Failing to do so, as is here proposed, denies residents the due process protections of the rezoning process, as described below. 4. Processing a PUD plan application for a use not allowed in the underlying PUD district denies due process of law. It is important to establish at the outset that the final PUD plan application under consideration in this case is not an application for rezoning. A rezoning application would be subject to notice and hearing requirements which the applicant has not satisfied in this case. For the county to treat this PUD plan application for a non-listed use in this zone district as a final plan application is to deny residents of the county due process of law and to render the actions of the county void. The members of the Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County, along with all residents of the County, have a constitutional right to due process of law. Due process "require[s] an opportunity for property owners to be heard before ordinances which substantially affect their property rights are adopted. " Board of County Comm'rs v. City of Thornton, 629 P. 2d 605, 611 (Colo. 1981) (citations omitted) . The value and use of the property owned by these residents of Weld County will be substantially impacted by the proposed development. See id. at 609 (recognizing that property owners have a legally protected interest in insulating their property from adverse effects caused by legally deficient zoning determinations concerning nearby property) . Treating the application as a final PUD Plan, rather than requiring rezoning, offends my clients' constitutional right to due process, as well as the same rights held by all residents of the County. The PUD rezoning process provides the public with an opportunity for notice and hearing. The expedited plan approval process does not. GED\99998\71056.1 Ja.LIZ43 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 5 Because the 1989 approval of this PUD District listed only use classifications which do not include any prison or correctional facilities, the notice provided to the public concerning the PUD zoning in 1989 could not and did not include notice of use of the involved property as a prison. Notice which does not mention the use involved fails to sufficiently warn all persons whose rights might be affected by the proposed action. See Fedder v. McCurdy, 768 P. 2d 711, 714 (Colo. App. 1988) . There was no public testimony at the hearing held by this Commission on the PUD application in 1989. This is because no one was given notice that a prison facility would be allowed on the property as a consequence of the rezoning. No one can seriously believe that, had the application for PUD zoning in 1989 included prison uses in the list of uses approved, there would have been no public testimony? Colorado courts have recognized the importance of the constitutional protections afforded the public through the public notice and hearing requirements for rezoning. Treatment of a request for an unpermitted use as anything less than a request for rezoning has been interpreted as an intolerable attempt to sidestep the normal processes required for rezoning, such as detailed notice requirements and study by the staff and planning commission. Murray v. Board of Adjustment, Larimer County, 42 Colo. App. 113, 594 P. 2d 596, 597 (1979) . The Application seeks a use not permitted in C-1 through C-4 or I-1. This is not simply a request for PUD approval . In effect, this application seeks rezoning. To proceed on this Application as though the requested use was a permitted use is to deny the concerned public due process. The entity responsible for zoning must, in the exercise of its police powers, afford procedural due process as delineated in its zoning code. McArthur v. Zabka, 177 Colo. 377, 494 P.2d 89 , 93 (1972) . Residents of the County have a right to rely upon the Weld County Zoning Ordinances and to rely on the fact that zoning of the land in their neighborhood will not be changed absent substantial reasons therefor. Fedder v. McCurdy, 768 P. 2d 711, 713 (Colo. App. 1988) (citing Holly Dev't Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 140 Colo. 95, 342 P.2d 1032 (1959) ) . Processing this application for an unpermitted use would violate the County's own procedures. From the standpoint of due process, property owners have the right to proceed upon the assumption that the governing body will follow the dictates of the ordinances concerning zoning. McArthur v. Zabka, 494 P. 2d at 93 . A legislative body is bound to follow the regulations it has adopted and, when the governmental body fails to follow the zoning GED\99998\71056.1 91249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 6 ordinances or its own established procedures when engaging in rezoning, it is violating the requirements of due process. See Miller v. City of Albuquerque, 554 P. 2d 665, 668-69 (N.M. 1976) . To process an application to develop a non-permitted prison use in the district denies Weld County residents due process of law by ignoring the requirements of the Zoning Code established for their protection. The proper procedure, which would provide due process, is to require an application under Section 28. 15. 1 to amend the district to add prisons as an allowed use, then to resubmit the current application. 5. The application impermissibly proposes an amendment to the 1989 plat. As a condition of the Planning Commission's approval and the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the Fort Junction PUD in 1989 , the following plat note was required (and does appear) on the Fort Junction PUD District plat: a. Prior to recording a PUD plan plat, a law enforcement authority shall be formed according to State Law. The law enforcement authority to be formed shall be capable of expanding to serve other areas within the I-25 MUD area to avoid duplication of overhead and other operating costs. This plat requirement was based, in turn, upon a Memorandum from the Weld County Sheriff dated December 20, 1988 . A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . The Memorandum states, in pertinent part: It will be our request that the New Creation Fort Junction development form an LEA or join the LEA created by the Crossroads Development if it is created first. We also request that whatever LEA is formed first, all other Del Camino area development be required to join, regardless of zoning, due to the significant concentration of resources occurring at Del Camino. This area is literally becoming an unincorporated city that will demand far more resources than will be GED\99998\71056.1 3 1ti49 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 7 available under conventional county mill levys. (emphasis supplied) The applicant has (admittedly) not fulfilled this condition and instead claims that the County Sheriff has changed his mind and that an LEA is no longer necessary. However, neither the applicant nor the Sheriff can unilaterally or cooperatively amend the Fort Junction PUD District plat. The Ft. Junction plat requires the formation of an LEA prior to the approval of an application for any development in the Ft. Junction PUD. The plat note was established as part of rezoning process. It may not be eliminated by the Commission or the Board of County Commissioners as a part of the (current) PUD plan approval process. No notice has been given to the public of any request to amend the Ft. Junction plat by deleting a requirement. Such notice is required to afford due process. A review of the file has confirmed that no plat amendment application or process has been initiated. Until this has been done, or the LEA has been formed as the plat note requires, the County is without power to approve a final PUD application for any portion of the Fort Junction PUD District. 6. The proposed prison use is incompatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and with the affected community. The subject property lies within the Firestone/Frederick/ Dacono Urban Growth Boundary. (Comprehensive Plan, page 32 . ) The tri-area commission has unanimously recommended that the applica- tion be denied. This recommendation should be given weight by this Commission. (Comprehensive Plan, page 34, para. C. ) Rather than "not objecting" to this land use application, the Longmont Planning Director, stated that "I understand that the proposed land use is consistent with the PUD and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . . . . " As described above, the proposed prison land use is not permitted in this PUD; the Concerned Citizens further believe that it is inconsistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is listed for commercial use in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Conceptual Land Use Plan. (Comprehensive Plan, page 46. ) One policy of the I-25 PUD Area is that new development "demonstrate compatibility with existing surrounding land use . . " (Comprehensive Plan, page 49 , para. 5. ) The Concerned Citizens feel strongly that the proposed prison is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Evidence of this incompatibility is already present in the record before the Commission: GED\99998\71056.1 9u1241 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 8 a. Field check dated September 7 , 1993 : "This is in a highly-populated area because of all of the different businesses located to the west, because of kinds of businesses, this is an area where people come and go a lot. " b. Letters from homeowners in the neighborhood, expressing concern with the compatibility of the use and the safety risks associated with inmates and visitors to the facility: (1) September 21, 1993 : Roy M. Finnis (2) September 21, 1993 : Terry and Jane Sprouse (3) June 17 , 1993 : Mary and Alvin Mengel (4) June 8, 1993 : Vivian and Bob Konkle (5) June 9, 1993 : Paul and Tammy Thompson (6) June 1, 1993 : Marvin and Sharon Hopper, and others (7) June 11, 1993 : David Koehler and (8) June 8, 1993 : Frank Canepa. c. A People's Petition signed by over 1, 400 residents of Southwest Weld County has been filed in opposition to the project and is in your packets. d. The Concerned Citizens will provide extensive testimony on this point. As part of its presentation to you today, the Concerned Citizens will present witnesses on the following subjects: (a) Nature of the expected prison population and capacity of the applicant to safely conduct that operation; (b) Concerns of business owners in the Del Camino area with respect to the economic impact of the proposed operation on their businesses, as well as the safety and welfare of their employees and customers. GED\99998\71056.1 98249 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 9 (c) Concerns of neighboring communities, as expressed by various community leaders; (d) Neighborhood concerns relating to safety and compatibility, as expressed by individual residents and homeowners in the affected community. 7 . The application does not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Planned development applications must meet all the standards and procedures set forth in the planned development ordinance. Ford Leasing Development Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, Colo. 528 P.2d 237, 240 (1974) . The Weld County Zoning Ordinance sets out detailed requirements for a complete PUD plan application at Sections 28.9, 28 . 10 and 28 . 11. The present application fails to satisfy these requirements, either in scope or detail . In many instances, the applicant has simply copied general data submitted in 1988 for the PUD district application. As we know, the 1988 application neither mentioned nor contemplated a prison; data from that date is of little relevance to the present prison application. One of the submission requirements is an "off-site road improvements agreement proposal. " Section 28 . 9 . 1.7 . The applicant has submitted one such proposed agreement. However, at Exhibit 9 to the application, the applicant takes the position that no off- site road improvements are necessary. This is not consistent with the position of the Colorado Department of Transportation as found in Theresa G. Jones' letter on behalf of DOT to Keith Schuett, dated September 17 , 1993 . That letter provides, in pertinent part: It should be noted by both the County and the owners of the Fort Junction property that although the Department has clearly committed to the construction of the newly-aligned frontage road, we have not made a commitment to construct auxiliary lanes which are necessary to serve development along the state highway, as would be required by the State Highway Access Code. . The issue of who constructs that [right [right thru decel] lane remains to be resolved. (emphasis supplied. ) GED\99998\71056.1 9Z12‘19 Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 10 I am currently pursuing resolution of the Department's position. It must be noted that if our position is that the lanes made necessary by development must be constructed or guaranteed by the property owner, the State Highway Access Permit required for construction of access from the frontage road must include those plans, along with a full description of the construction stating which will occur. The letter goes on to indicate that there appears to be a "borderline" need for a left deceleration lane. These issues are not addressed in the proposed Off-site Improvements Agreement submitted by the applicant. CONCLUSION The applicant in this case has the burden of proof with respect to all six (6) of the criteria in Section 28. 13 . 1. This letter and the presentation of the Concerned Citizens on October 5 will demonstrate that the applicant cannot meet that burden: § 28. 13. 1. 1: The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. § 28. 13. 1.2 : The PUD Plan applied for does not conform to the PUD district in which it is located (prison use not allowed) . § 28. 13.1.3: The prison use applied for is not compatible with the surrounding area as demonstrated by the County Comprehensive Plan and local planning agencies. § 28. 13. 1.5: The application does not comply with the relevant Overlay District requirement. (Section 54 . 3 : Use Permitted - prison use not permitted in the Fort Junction PUD district. ) § 28. 13 . 1. 6: The application fails to satisfy the submittal requirements for a proper PUD Plan. The Concerned Citizens urge the Commission to recommend denial of the application for the reasons described. GED\99998\71056.1 o1 ",i Weld County Planning Commission October 5, 1993 Page 11 Yours truly, GORSUCH, KIRGIS, CAMPBELL, ER AND GROV Gerald E. Dahl GED:nc cc: Concerned Citizens of Southwest Weld County GED\99998\71056.1 9Z::1249 Colorado Revised Statutes 17-25 . 103 No adult felony violent or sex offender shall be placed by the department in a minimum security facility in any county without first having been placed in at least one more restrictive setting for less than six months . The six month requirement may be waived only with the approval of the executive director of the department, chief of the diagnostic unit, and officer in charge of the receiving minimum security facility. r tXingu , 1it 901249 08 June 93 11621 WCR 13 e�� Longmont, CO 80504 i .�1�►� •County Commissioners Office \ i% ",•T' Attention: Barb Kirkmeyer P . 0. Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 In the near future you may be asked to consider the construction of a pre-parole facility in the Del Camino community--in the general area of Interstate 25 and Colorado 119 (Weld County Road 24 . ) I have had the opportunity to attend meetings concerning this proposal; the initial meeting being organized the by the developers and proponents of this venture. In each case, it has been very apparent that the members of the community are unequivocally opposed to this project . While my initial perceptions were neutral, as I secured more information on the impacts of such a facility it became obvious that this type of facility has significant negative impacts on the community over the long term. Similar facilities have been proposed along the front range recently. In at least nine (9) communities, including three in Weld County, the local governments have investigated and evaluated similar proposals . After careful consideration, each of these governments has voted not to approve this type of facility in their communities . The overwhelming factor was that the short-term economic benefits of such a facility are overwhelmed by the long-term negative impacts on the surrounding area. The operators of The Villa facility in Greeley, were unable generate enough support in the Greeley area to secure approval for a pre-parole facility--even though they have been operating in Greeley for a number of years . Basically, it comes down to the fact that their past performance does not generate confidence on the part of the Greeley community to be allowed the opportunity to locate this facility in the area. Based on the negative response in the Greeley area, these individuals pursued similar opportunities in the Evans and Windsor areas, where they met with similar rejection by the local governments . Now, they are bypassing the incorporated areas, and pursuing their agenda in unincorporated Weld County where the community is more dispersed and organized resistance is perceived to be less of an issue . The underlying intention is that the Weld County government may be more likely to approve their proposal . Recognizing the fact that you will have a difficult decision to make regarding the proposed development, I have researched this agenda and have identified the following factors : 1 . The concept of pre-parole facilities is new to the State of Colorado . Legislation approving this concept has only been in place for less than two years . 2 . The proposed facility in Weld County is effectively an 9e7a 1.2 49 "experiment" . W. ie references are made to .milar facilities in other states, no similar facility exists in Colorado . 3 . Under the law authorizing creation of pre-parole facilities, they will be required to take any and all offenders, including those with violent histories . Should any incidents occur inside the facility, support will be provided from Canon City (about 3 hours travel time) . 4 . The residents of this facility are felonious offenders . The statement that these individuals are "non-violent", reflects only the fact that they have not been CONVICTED of violent offenses . Research shows that those involved in drug trafficking are likely to have committed violent acts which are not able to be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" for conviction. Nonetheless, their activities in the past indicate that they may be prone to or have participated in violent activities if only by their participation in drug-related activities . It should be noted here that a large percentage of drug offenders are not typically remanded to the custody of the Department of Corrections . Those individual that are have exhausted the legal system to the point where incarceration was the only alternative . Many, if not most, are repeat offenders, and ALL are FELONS . 5 . The classification (Class I-V) of a prisoner is as much a reflection of a persons ability to conform to standards of behavior within the corrections system, as it is the activity that caused them to be remanded to the custody of the state . The ability to follow corrections guidelines and regulations, interact appropriately with corrections officers, and the evaluations of corrections mental health professionals (an in-exact science at best) may reflect the the classification of inmates as well--regardless of their intial offense (s) . 6. The impact on the community transcends the facility itself, as the inmates have visitation privileges . In both Ordway and Limon, law enforcement has noted that the traffic for visitors to the facilities is reflected in increased drunk-driving offenses, possession of contraband (e.g. drugs) and other offenses . This undoubtedly is reflected by The Villa' s admission that dogs will be used to search the facility for contraband. This contraband is provided typically by visitors to the facility. In Limon, the court case load has increased significantly as any offenses inside the facility must be adjudicated in the county court system. The county has had to measureably increase their investments in security at the courts due to the volume and types of offenses perpetrated in the facility. 7 . In speaking with individuals in Ordway, the economic benefits anticipated by the corrections facility have not materialized. This has been due to the fact that employees 9.1/47,1249 of the facility, file residing within the c muting limitations established, have chosen to live in communities outside the Ordway area . If one would extrapolate a similar impact in Southern Weld County, employees commuting 20-30 minutes could reside in Longmont, Loveland, Boulder, Northglenn and Thornton . Weld County would, in fact, assume all of the risks while hoping the few benefits actually materialize . The issues concerned with development in our county are extremely complex. The concept of balancing the economic demands and the harmonious development of the county need to be adhered to under the terms of the comprehensive plan . Exceptions to the comprehensive plan should be diligently explored as to their impacts and long-term implications for the county. As you are asked to evaluate the concept of any corrections related facility in the county, you are asked to keep the following criteria foremost in your mind: 1 . Since Weld County has significantly less population than those counties to its west and south, are we prepared to assume responsibility for managing and supporting the undesirable elements generated in those counties, or for that matter, the State of Colorado? We have to determine if Weld County is prepared to assume as disproportionate part of the burden for the State. Can we afford to sacrifice control over our own lives because Weld County is prepared to relieve the metro areas of their problems? 2 . Other counties have invited development based on perceived economic benefits, only to find the benefits are short-lived and the impacts are long term. A. The mountain communities that endorsed gambling have now found their communities are changed forever. The impacts on traffic, law enforcement, pollution and other factors are only now being realized and it' s too late to turn back the clock. B. The town of Ordway, has not experienced the rush economic development anticipated. In fact, the general feeling is that should Ordway have the opportunity to make the decision over again, the population would NOT support the construction of the corrections facility in their community . C . I have addressed the court case issue in Limon earlier in Item 6 above. 3 . Is Weld County prepared to experiment with the pre-parole concept, before the Department of Corrections has finalized their agenda and conducted public review? Without all of the facts, we may be endorsing a concept that once implemented is difficult (or impossible) to remedy. 901249 The potential ex .s to support development ly to realize that the business concept has changed as it is implemented. Once construction begins, it is virtually impossible to stop the process . The business charter proposed by The Villa is premature . The administrative and financial considerations, under the House Bill authorizing the pre-parole concept, may be modified at any time to suite the needs of the State--leaving Weld County having to react to the fiat of legislative committees and lobbyists . History shows that the state legislature is sometimes extremely insensitive to the constraints under which county and local governments operate . Addtionally, The Villa does not have a contract with the State . There business plan assumes the services contract will be awarded if they can show they have all of the approvals . 4 . The overall tax revenue to the county is minimal . Based on a $10, 000, 000 construction cost (The Villa' s number) , a taxable value of 29% (or $2 . 9 million) , and a mill levy of 122 . 839 will yield tax revenues of $356, 231 annually. When one applies the public services required to support the proposed facility, the incremental revenue provided does not begin to approach the costs of additional police, road, and other public services required in the area. When adding costs for additional requirements made on the justice system-- it is painfully obvious that all citizens of Weld County will - have to sacrifice--while a very few benefit . When providing these incremental services within an incorpora- ted area, the associated costs are considerably less due to the fact that the infrastructure is already in place and/or the utilization of such services is high enough to justify the cost . In Weld County, few communities are positioned to assume this cost as evidenced by the recent decisions of Greeley, Windsor and Evans to veto this type of facility. 5 . Under the growth policies detailed in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, a proposed use must determined to be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan . New development in the Del Camino area has been reasonably compatible with existing development . The corridor has been able to support a variety of commercial and industrial activities while minimizing the impacts on agricultural or residential interests . The proposed correction facility seriously compromises the relationship among the interests residing in the area. A. The facility as proposed by The Villa, is unique in that it cannot be categorized under the traditional definitions of industrial or commercial . B . The initial site proposed by The Villa will require a special use permit since it is proposed in an area designated for Medium Density Residential (MDR) and will be immediately adjacent to single family 901249 dwelling C. Regardless of where the facility is located in the area, impacts on the local residents relative to traffic flows on visitation days, security/fencing, lighting, and construction will be considerable. Consideration relative to the impacts on the individuals and businesses that have made significant property investments must take precedence since many of the investments were made prior to the development of the comprehensive plan in 1987, and subsequently under terms of its adoption. 4 . The final decision must reflect a high sensitivity to the wishes of the surrounding community. 5 . The county has little or no ability to protect the community from the "associates" of the inmates who visit the facility--many of whom will have criminal records . The exposure the residents and business owners in the area will assume transcends the ability of Weld County to protect their interests . Ultimately, the Commissioners must make a decision that reflects the interests of those immediately impacted and all residents of Weld County. Based on the criteria detailed above, I encourage the Planning Commission and the Commissioners to reject any proposal for the construction of a correctional facility in the Del Camino area specifically, and Weld County in general . While I recognize that in the future conditions may warrant a re-examination of this issue, at this time I feel that the best interests of Weld County are served by not approving any business proposal of this nature. Sincerely, Frank M. Canepa 303/651-0584 931249 DMMUNITIES RESPONSE Information Regarding the Proposed 4 PreRelease Center r EXMl11T Submitted By: Concerned Citizens of That- Southwest Weld County The following information is intended to clarify and detail the Villa at Greeley Inc. responses to the "commonly asked questions concerning the operations of the proposed prison. Introduction: The State of Colorado has initiated and implemented a variety of responses to the conditions of overcrowding within state prison facilities . The concept of pre-parole programs and facilities is another response to reduce the financial and facilities burden currently endured by the state. The Villa at Greeley has petitioned the Colorado Department of Corrections to build and operate a private prison facility. Under House Bill 90-1327 which authorized the privitization of corrections facilities in Colorado, some specific facts should be addressed: A. The preparole prison facility proposed for the Del Camino area (Interstate 25 at Colorado Highway 119) is designed to house ANY felonious offender approved for future release by the Board of Parole. The House Bill does not distinguish between violent or non-violent offenders . Nor does it preclude any prisoner regardless of the seriousness of their offense or class of felony from being assigned to a "preparole facility" . B. The facility may be used to detain ANY parole violator until the Department of Corrections acts on the individual' s case. The bill does not place any limitations on the time a parole violater may reside in this facility awaiting disposition of his case. C. Under the guise of education and personal development, the facility is in fact, a prison with one major exception--prisoners are not confined to a cell with a maximum of two or three offenders . Instead, the facility promotes a dormitory or barracks concept where up to 50 offenders share common facilities and living space under the direct control, in some cases, of a single corrections officer. D. Inmates may reside in this prison for up 180 days (6 months) . E. While health and education services are provided within the facility, prisoners may be transported to local jails when deemed necessary due to behavior or rules violations . F. This prison will house a high-security area for problem prisoners . an249 Question #1 : What kinds of offenders will be placed in the proposed prison facility? The Department of Corrections classifies each felony committed by a person . These classes are categorized based on the severity of the offense as defined under the Colorado Revised Statues (C.R. S . ) on a scale of 1 - 6; with 1 (Most Serious) and 6 (Least Serious) . It should be noted that most inamtes are multiple offenders and have exhausted the patience and leniency of the legal system. Those prisoners classified as "violent" will have to be CONVICTED of a violent crime. Our legal system does not provide for "circumstantial evidence" when categorizing prisoners. With court loads, plea bargaining allows a person to admit guilt to a lesser charge and sentence in order to expedite case disposition. In other words, a person originally charged with a violent crime, may have the charges reduced and therefore, would not be classified as violent . A recent report of the Department of Corrections indicates that those remanded to the custody of the state typically serve less than 50% of their original sentence . For a Class 5 or 6 offender, over one-third (>33%) and up to one-half (50%) of their actual time may be served in a "pre-parole" facility. Offenders convicted of violent offenses are eligible for release after completing 75% of their sentence . However, current estimates in a Department of Criminal Justice report, indicates that the average Class 5V (for "violent") offender is expected to serve, on the average, 46.4% of his sentence; while a Class 5 non-violent offender serves an average of 48% of his sentence. The Villa at Greeley states in their response "The prerelease center will serve only those violent offenders who have proven themselves to be neither a management problem nor an escape risk. . . " The developers have failed to note that those who DO NOT QUALIFY for community corrections (commonly known as "half-way houses") may be assigned to a pre-parole facility, as they require a significantly higher degree of security to protect the community. As stated in the introduction, the Department of Corrections does not preclude ANY inmate--regardless of Class of Felony--from being assigned to a preparole prison if they are within 180 days of release from the corrections system. When addressing individuals who are motivated to escape, again the house bill approves of the use of a preparole prison for holding parole violators until there hearing is held. A parole violator who is facing completion of his unserved sentence has a tremendous amount of motivation to assess his opportunity for escape. Additionally, a proposal request in 1992 from the Department of Corrections specifically states that certain types of preparole inmates (Track III) are to be segregated and refused contact with other inmates (Tracks I & II) . Even within the facility, the state acknowledges degrees of risk among the inmates . 9a1249 The c;evelopers are propo_ .ig this facility, and the ,pes of offenders it will house, based on the quality of the evaluation system to appropriately measure the motivations of the individual to conform to accepted prison behavior. Psychologists tend to agree that the human psyche is too complex as to accurately categorize and anticipate those factors that influence an individuals behaviors and motivations . Two "minimum security" prisoners escaped the weekend of September 24, 1993 from another Colorado facility--the Villa at Greeley expects the community to embrace their concept that persons who have acted irrationally in the past will, within 180 days of release, make a dramatic turn towards rationality. It should be noted that House Bill 90-1327 provides significant financial motivation for the preparole prison to assume responsibility for higher risk inmates . For example, the standard "residential rate" for an inmate is $30 . 00 per day. The Villa is eligible to receive $44 . 00 per day for an offender placed in a "mental health treatment program. " Question #2 : Will the proposed facility evolve in to a higher type "maximum" security facility? While the Villa may not currently have any motivation to upgrade the facility, they are subject to factors well beyond their control . The Villa is a contractor to the State of Colorado and is subject to the executive fiat of the Governor and the whims of the state legislature. Using the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) as an example, the industry leader in private corrections facilities, they did not achieve profitability until their seventh year of operation. We do not know if the Villa at Greeley has the ability to sustain this effort should their estimates prove inaccurate. The community effectively assumes the risk should financial failure occur since the state will have a limited number of options, including: A. Assume operation of the facility (at which time the parameters regulating the "quality" of inmates remains solely in the hands of the Department of Corrections) , B. Find another firm to assume operational and financial control . C. Close the facility. (This is the least feasible option since the Department of Corrections has based their management and financial requirements on having a specific number of beds available . ) An important factor in evaluating the financial stability of the operation is to evaluate the commercial rating assigned to the bonds used to finance the project . The lower the rating, the higher the risk. The lower the rating, the greater the premium over prime interest rate. The higher the interest rate, the lower the potential for profitability and stability. As evidenced by the recent assessments/recall of all bonds for Castle Pines North in Douglas County, no one can accurately predict the ongoing viability of revenue bond-funded operations . 54249 Expansion of the Facility As part of the option on the purchase of the acreage in the Del Camino area, the Villa at Greeley intends to purchase over 50 acres . Initially, only 20+ acres will be developed for the prison facility. No mention is made regarding plans for the remaining acreage . While the developers state that they are restricted on housing a higher population in the proposed prison, no mention is made of plans to expand the the current facility or to construct a second facility on the remaining property. The developers state that the facility is limited in its design for other uses or higher security incarceration. The Department of Corrections has a track record of modifying the use of facilities to suit its requirements . This is especially true in the areas of exceeding rated inmate capacities for facilities or not satisfying basic requirements required by law. The intentions of the DOC and the Villa reflect the current situation--history is an indicator that expediency supercedes promises over time. Question #3 : Will offenders from other jurisdictions be released in the Del Camino area upon completion of the prerelease program? The Villa at Greeley unequivocally states that no offender will be released into the community unless they originally resided here. In the realm of government there are no absolutes . The Governor, State Legislature, and the Department of Corrections must have the flexibility to respond to changes in our society. While the intentions of all involved are honorable, terms such as "No" and "Never" are not realistic in the 1990' s. The Villa at Greeley is a contractor to the State--the legislature has the power to modify the rules for the operation and treatment of the inmates up to the time they exit the facility. Question #4 : Has the basic facility design been adequately reviewed in regard to acceptable security and operational procedures, as well as adherence to all applicable codes and standards? The Villa at Greeley Inc. is required by the state to conform to accepted standards . While the facility has been determined to exceed the level of security required for it use, it is not realistic to assume that this or any other facility is truly secure. To use an analogy, if a school teacher is unable to maintain classroom control over 25-30 students when a few are disruptive, is it reasonable for a single corrections officer to effectively manage up to 50 inmates when only one or a few are disruptive? aa1.24,3 The :ommunity should not _mbrace a false sense of security. In the mid-1980' s, prisoners at the maximum security facility in New Mexico breached virtually every "secure" barrier. This is a facility where inmates were confined to their cells for 23 hours per day. Within two hours, cellblocks were in complete control of the inmates, "shatterproof" glass barriers were shattered; those in protective custody were maimed or murdered, and so on. We should also reference the maximum security prison in Atlanta, when in the mid-1980' s the prisoners maintained control over the facility for almost a week. In both cases, these prisoners are confined two persons in a cell, with each cellblock segreated from the other. The location of the proposed facility puts an escapee within 15 minutes walking time of a major traffic thoroughfare, a recreation and services area dedicated to travelers, and an intersection that is significantly overburdened, as evidenced by the waiting times experienced by vehicles . This intersection is and consistently used by busses transporting children. An inmate intent on escape can identify an innumerable number of opportunities to hijack a vehicle. The barracks type atmosphere proposed by the developers lends itself to "mob tactics" at any time. The developers are relying on the Weld County Sheriff' s Department, the State Patrol and the Department of Corrections to respond within reasonable time in the event of problems . In the 30-45 minutes it typically takes a deputy to respond, sufficient damage to the facility and loss of control can occur. Our deputies and patrolmen are at significant risk as they are not continually trained to deal with this type of situation. The Mountain View Fire Protection District relies almost exclusively on volunteers in the Del Camino area for fire protection. In the event of a fire at the facility, is it reasonable to expect community members to risk their well-being both in terms of the fire itself and the actions of even a single inmate? Question #5: What about the risk of escape; or problems with visitors? The Villa at Greeley Inc. sites Police Chief John Michaels of Windsor and his research relative to the impact on local crime after construction of this type of facility. Chief Michaels sited four locations in Texas to support his position. Chief Michaels failed to contact Colorado locations that pursued prison facilities most recently. In the case of Ordway, significant and measurable increases in drunk driving and contraband possession (e .g. drugs) have been specifically associated with visitors to the facility. Regardless of how these offense are categorized, they are incremental burden to law enforcement and the community. :n Limon, the county has had to invest significant amounts of tax lollars to enhance security at the county courthouse since all activities within the corrections facility that require a hearing or trial must be conducted in the county. Obviously, the risk of escape _s of real concern. 9C1249 In a previous presentatiL_., the Villa at Greeley sta_ad that dogs would be used in the facility to search for contraband. It is no secret that, even in the most secure facilities, drugs and weapons are available to the inmates from a variety of sources--typically provided from the outside . While the developers use Chief Michaels responses to support their agenda, they readily admit that contraband is an issue that warrants ongoing attention. If the contraband is not produced internally, then it reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of visitors not currently residing in the Del Camino area will be transporting these products . Question #6 : Will property values decline? An equally valid question is: Will property values continue to experience the same rate of growth as prior to the construction of a prison? If a homeowner effectively foregoes appreciation in his property values due to the location of a prison, then he has been negatively impacted. The developers continue to reinforce the concept that values will not decline, but continue to evade the issue that property values may remain static due to the lack of desirability relative to other locations . It is not reasonable, due to the complexity of the issue, to unequivocally state that the prison will not have a negative impact on property values. The Villa at Greeley Inc. continues to site a study conducted in California as the reference for evaluating the impact of prisons on property values . The study cites locations around the State of California, a state with one of the highest costs of living (centered around housing) and now experiencing one of the greatest declines in housing values (upwards of 30% in certain areas) due to changes in the economic base and the level of crime. California has some of the highest population densities in the country and does not correlate with Colorado. Again, the developers should look a little closer to home. In an article published within the last year, an analysis of the economic issues associated with PRISONS IN COLORADO, the economic benefits anticipated by communities were not achieved. Prison employees, based on their incomes, typically pursue housing in the range of $70, 000-$80, 000 . If this is true for the Del Camino prison, then employees will have to commute significant distances due to the lack of available housing. In Ordway, only two spec homes where constructed, as builders realized the expected demand for housing Failed to materialize. In a statement by a prison official who asked to anonymous (according to the publication) states "It' s a false premise to say prisons represent and economic boom unless you have places for employees to live and no major metro area less than one hour away. " If we apply this statement to the Del Camino prison, then the community will not experience the economic benefits anticipated by the proponents . 92249 Those who expect local businesses to benefit should L.ake note of a statement from Bill Tripp of the Department of Corrections : "People don' t understand that the state purchasing system is a bid process . . . It' s not like we say we have to buy $200, 000 worth of food to feed our inmates and we' re going to go down to the local grocery store. Some people don' t understand that . " Under the same premise, procurements go to the lowest cost provider. If local businesses cannot compete with the larger providers around the state, they will see the dollars continue to flow outside the community. Again, using Ordway as an example. Of the 334 jobs in the new prison, only 60-70 local residents were hired. The majority of prison employees (upwards of 60%) commute 45 miles from Pueblo. Extrapolating this data to the Del Camino prison, Boulder, Adams, and Larimer counties will see the most benefit while assuming little or none of the risk. CLOSING The research included in this document is publicly available. It includes the House Bill 90-1327, an initial Request for Proposal from the Department of Corrections for a Preparole Facility, reports from the Department of Corrections, and various magazine articles . The objective is to continue to provide the community, zoning authority and Weld County commissioners with additional facts and perspectives on the topics of economic benefits and risks associated with the construction of prison facilities . 9C1249 rrC.L'_S 9 :50 No .00? P .02 • TESTIMONY TO WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRE-PAROL FACILITY IN THE DEL CAMINO AREA - SOUTHWEST WELD COUNTY- • Prepared by Dale McCall 13715 Elmore Road Longmont,CO 80504 776-4365 • I urge the Weld County Planning Commission to recommend denial of the request to build and operate a Pre-Panel llacllity in Southwest Weld County. As a citizen and a member of the St. Vrain Valley School District,I strongly oppose this proposed action. I am speaking as an individual,not as a formal representative of the St.Vrain Valley School Board of Education The Board;as a whole,has not taken official action. ' 1 strongly oppose the proposed facility based upon the following: 1. I do not believe this is the type of industry that the public in the area will support. 2. I believe that the metro areas that generate the large number of prisoners need.to house those prisoners in their metro area-not our area. 3. I am very concerned about the safety of the children in our nearby schools,Le.,Prederick Elementary, Frederick Junior and Senior High Schools. 4. In addition,Ism very concerned about the safety of the school children that aro bused through the • intersection at Interstate 25 and Highway 119. Currently,two buses in the morning and two buses in the afternoon travel through that intersection. (A total of 150-200 students each day.) In conclusion, I strongly oppose this facility in Southwest Weld County. It does not fit within the values and expectations of the people that live and work in our community. The community did not request nor do they support this type of industry. EXHIBIT 9.21249 5 SV} fi �� "-�ra3/4 1990 O. ------Nes..\ ,r ----woof ----......-- , s EXHIBIT HOUSE BILL 90-1327. .. tt.,t; ,,,;. fir BY REPRESENTATIVES Neale, Chlouber, Reeves, Arveschoug, Foster, Grampsas, Romero, Jerke, Johnson, Jones, Pankey, Philips, Ratterree, Ruddick, Taylor-Little, J. Trujillo, Ulvang, and K. Williams; • also SENATORS Wham, Norton, L. Trujillo, Allison, Bird, Bishop, DeNier, Fenton, Hopper, Martinez, McCormick, Pastore, Rizzuto, Strickland, and Traylor. _ ___-_____ CONCERNING A PLAN TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL f JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND, - IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, 1 (\ IMPLEMENTING MEASURES TO REDUCE PRISON OVERCROWDING, AND ' MAKING AN _ N APPROPRIATION THEREFOR. . - -- --- Be it enacted Alt the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Designation of correctional the ilifatiestie- construction authorized: (1) In addition tauthorized in section 2 of this act, the department of corrections is hereby authorized and directed to provide for the construction of the following additional correctional facilities: ' (a) A five hundred bed close facility in Canon City; (b) A one hundred sixty bed women' s facility adjacent to the Denver regional diagnostic center; and , (c) A warehouse facility to serve the Buena Vista correctional facility and the boot camp to be located in Chaffee county. SECTION 2. Designation of correctional facilities - recommendations of capital development committee. (1) The capital development committee, in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of chapter 3, Session Laws of Colorado 1989, First Extraordinary Session, as amended by Senate Bill p, Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; - dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and 931249 • mac. a�+ , 41 aq 31:•; T'.r Wire•Y. 90-172. enacted at the Second Regular Session of the Fifty-seventh General Assembly, hereby recommends, in addition to the construction recommendations contained in the committee's 1990 annual report to the general assembly, and the general assembly hereby designates, the following sites and security levels for the construction of four additional correctional facilities, not necessarily in the following order: (a) One medium security correctional facility at Sterling, Colorado; (b) One medium or maximum security correctional facility at Canon City. Colorado; (c) One minimum security correctional facility at Trinidad, Colorado; and • (d) One minimum security' facility in Chaffee County. Colorado. SECTION 3. 24-35-210 (1) (f) (I) (C) . Colorado Revised Statutes, 1988 Repl . Vol. , is amended, and the said 24-35-210 (1) (f) (I) is further amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUB-SUBPARAGRAPH. :to read: 24-35-210. Lottery fund." (1) (f) (I) (C) A diagnostic correctional facility providing for approximately three hundred thirty-six beds to be located at or in the environs of Denver, Colorado; and (C.5) A two hundred fifty bed special needs unit on the campus of the Colorado state hospital in Pueblo and a boot camp in Chaffee county„ Colorado, which boot camp shall be used for the regimented inmate discipline and treatment program established in House Bill 90-1023, enacted at the Second Regular Session of the Fifty-seventh General Assembly. The total cost of the acquisition of the special needs unit and the boot camp shall not exceed twenty-six million dollars, exclusive of financing costs and capitalized interest; and SECTION 4. Title 17, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl. Vol. , as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE to read: ARTICLE 26.5 Multi-jurisdictional Jails 17-26.5-101. Multi-jurisdictional jails - authorized. The general assembly hereby authorizes any county, city and county, city, or the department of corrections of the state of Colorado to enter into a contract or contracts with each other PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 91249�..� ry in accordance with part 2 of article 1 of title 29, C.R.S., to design, locate, construct, and operate a multi-jurisdictional jail for the incarceration of county, city and county, city, or state prisoners. In the alternative, the described governmental entities may enter into the necessary contracts with a private contractor for •the provision and operation of such jail . 17-26.5-102. Contracts for multi-jurisdictional jails - requirements. (1) Any contract or contracts for the creation of a multi-jurisdictional jail as described in section 17-26.5-101 shall contain the following requirements: (a) An agreement regarding involvement by each of the governmental entities in the predesign planning, design, location, and construction of such . a jail facility or involvement in any agreement to obtain a private contractor to provide a jail facility and the operation thereof. (b) An agreement regarding involvement by each of the governmental entities in construction management and oversight for such a jail facility. (c) An agreement regarding involvement by each of the governmental entities in financing the construction of such a jail facility. • (d) An agreement regarding involvement by each of the governmental entities in financing and providing for staffing and operation of such jail facility, which may provide for staffing and operation solely by any county, city and county, or city with financial assistance from the state department of corrections or any other governmental entity involved, or staffing and operation through a joint staffing and operation agreement between any county, city and county, or city and the state department of corrections, if the department is involved in the multi-jurisdictional jail facility. (e) An agreement regarding involvement by each of the governmental entities in financing and providing for programs for such jail facility. (f) An agreement regarding utilization of such jail • facility by each of the governmental entities involved in the multi-jurisdictional jail facility. However, if the state department of corrections is involved in the facility, such agreement shall provide that a proportionate number of beds in the facility, equal to the proportionate percentage of the financing of the construction and operation of the facility which was provided by the state department of corrections bears to the entire cost of the construction and operation of • the facility, shall be reserved for utilization by the state PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 92124 '1; • 1 a p`yy'f}'`�j'1 department of corrections if such beds are needed by the department. Any such beds so reserved shall be counted by the department as available beds when determining the number of beds available in the state correctional system. SECTION 5.. 17-1-103 (1) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repo. Vol ., as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARAGRAPH to read: . 17-1-103. Duties of the executive director. (1) (j) Subject to available appropriations, to enter into contracts for the construction, staffing, operation, and utilization of multi-jurisdictional jails pursuant to article 26.5 of this title. SECTION 6. Authorization to enter into multi-jurisdictional jail agreements. The department of corrections is hereby authorized and directed to enter into an intergovernmental agreement or agreements for the construction, ' staffing, operation, and utilization of multi-jurisdictional jail facilities pursuant to article 26.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. Such agreement or agreements shall be entered into as soon as possible and shall provide for utilization of any multi-jurisdictional jail facility at the earliest possible date. SECTION 7. 16-11-201, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol ., is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read: 16-11-201. Application for probation. (4) The restrictions upon eligibility for probation in subsection (2) of this section may be waived by the sentencing court regarding a particular defendant upon recommendation of the district attorney and approval of such recommendation by an order of the sentencing court. Upon entry of an order pursuant to this subsection (4) regarding a particular defendant, such defendant shall be deemed to be eligible to apply to the court for probation pursuant to this section. SECTION 8. 42-2-206 (1) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1984 Repl . Vol., as amended, is amended to read: 42-2-206. Driving after revocation prohibited. (1) It is unlawful for any person to operate any motor vehicle in this state while the revocation of the department prohibiting the operation remains in effect. Any person found to be a habitual offender, who is thereafter convicted of operating a motor vehicle in this state while the revocation of the department prohibiting such operation is in effect, is guilty of a a4ass-b-Fe4eny CLASS 6 FELONY and shall be punished as • provided in section 18-1-105, C.R.S. except-that-a-m4a4mum PAGE 4-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - eRteAee-te-4mpr45eAment-sha44-be-mandatary.---Ne--pert#en--ef � weh--sentence--may--be--swspeedanptheat4en-maybe itc . ,grantee';=-txsept that,-- ea5e- where--estabT4shes--that--he--had--te--dr4ve--the--meter--veh4e4e--4n vieiat4de-ef-th45-subsest4en-(}),-because-ef-ae-emergeeey,--the mandatary--pr4sen--sentence-may-net-app4yr-er,-where-the-judge makes--spas4f4e--wroten--€twitnge---whtsh---deta43---spee4fte m4tsentencer-the-maumstery-prises-sentence--aed--the--preh4btt4en sentence,-the mandatery-p against-the-9raetIeg-ef-ecebattee-5ha44-net-app4y, -. SECTION 9. Article 2 of title 17, Colorado Revised Statutes, NEW Repl . Vol . , s amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A to i PART 4 PREPAROLE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS 17-2-401. Definitions.itions• As used in this part 4, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Inmate", for the purposes of placing such h pninmate ate within a preparole facility or program, mans sentenced to the department of corrections. lity or proram" means a • facility orPprogram" repardle which facimeets the following criteria: secure -(a) The facility or program is operated by the department or by a contractual agreement between the i .) i 'department and a unit of local government, a private nonprofit agency or organization, or any corporation, association, or �� Q labor organization. r , a (b) The facility or program provides secure residential Ceti beds -to- any inmate whois within ninety days of,�the date.upo which it has been determined asthrt The'::Wlir a alternative to regression-' i 7eleased', or ;t�' an�i"ni "� ' or to any parolee requrnmnuimit_ co detention pursuant , (ThNi 42 requiring limited detention pursuant to section 17-2-103 (4) , � (a), or as a condition of modified parole as determineddtbyathe � ' o e�1v�'. c; state board of parole. The general assembly hereby 3- that it intends that every effort shall be made to utilize community corrections programs to the fullest extent possible. -.) -' rovides in-residence (c) The facility or program p ch inmates in otainin and9holdingn regular iemployment, inces to c the t uprocess of enrolling in and maintaining academic courses and vocational training J 9 programs, in utilizing the resources of the community after 3 release s in meeting their providing appropriate therpersonal family in-residence and ) responsibilities,A • PAGE 5-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 4 = I '43r,*' I ' i !1 s n h� 4 treatment, and in participating in whatever in-residence specialized programs are available within the community in which such facility or program is located. (d) The local community corrections board created pursuant to article 27 of this title has granted approval to locate the facility or program within the jurisdiction of such board. Nothing in. this paragraph (d) shall be construed to interfere with the' operation of any local ordinances involving the zoning of, and siting of, correctional facilities within the jurisdiction of any unit of local government. (3) "Secure residential beds" means beds in a facility which has lockable doors and windows; and which has a method to detect and respond to any unauthorized entrance or exit by any inmate, parolee, or other person; and which has parolees; and which ahas na secureg external ent to monitor inmates and external perimeter. 17-2-402. Authority of the department to operate or to contract for preparole facilities and programs. (1) The executive director, after a competitive process, may operate or contract for the provision of preparole facilities and programs with a unit of local government, a private nonprofit agency or organization, or any corporation, association, or labor organization. However, in no casetshall` an` inmate spend -more than"'onev hundred eighty 'days= in such a facility or program. (2) The executive director shall have the power to establish and enforce standards and regulations for all preparole facilities or programs operated by a unit of local government or a nongovernmental agency with which the department contracts for services. 17-2-403. Escape from custody. If an inmate or parolee fails to remain within the extended limits of his confinement, he shall be deemed to have escaped from custody and shall , upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in section 18-8-208, C.R.S. , and all reductions in sentence authorized by part 2 of article 22.5 of this title shall be forfeited for offenders sentenced for crimes committed prior to July 1, 1979. 17-2-404. Report to general assembly. On or before .ilie January 1, 1992; the executive director of the department of corrections shall present a written report to the general assembly regarding the operation of preparole facilities and programs throughout the state. Such report shall include information on the number and type of such facilities, the effectiveness of preparole programs, any problems with such programs generally, and any problems encountered within the PAGE 6-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 921245 . 4 it kid. communities in which such preparole facilities or programs are located. 17-2-405. Repeal of part. This part 4 is repealed, effective July 1, 1992. SECTION 10. Authorization to contract for preparole beds. The executive director of the department of corrections. is hereby authorized to enter into a contractor contracts, after a competitive process, and after an approved request for proposal process pursuant to section 17-2-402, Colorado Revised Statutes, for up to three hundred beds in preparole facilities or programs at not more than forty-four dollars per day per. bed. Such facilities and programs shall be contracted for and utilized as soon as possible after the effective date of this act. SECTION 11. Expansion of diversion programs - authorized. The department of -ty is hereby authorized and. directed to expand diversion programs for offenders in accordance with a plan for such expansion formulated by the department of public safety, and through a competitive process for providers of such services. SECTION 12. Expansion of community corrections - incentives for expansion. (1) The department of public safety, after a competitive process, is hereby authorized and directed to provide, incentives a in'the' number of community correctional. facilitiee and Rrograms' available to be utilized by offenderstby :increasingrthe,,"per diem" amount for such facilities and programs pursuant to subsection (2) of this section and providing other incentives for starting up such facilities and programs, including startup' 'interest-free loan`s' in any amount Up'to"*`ssikty°`thousand° dollars to assist in the establishment of community corrections programs. (2) The general assembly hereby directs that the "per diem" amount for community correctional facilities and programs shall not exceed: (a) An average of thirty dollars per day for offenders in standard residential placements; (b) An average of thirty-five dollars per day for offenders in specialized release preparation centers; and (c) An average of forty-four dollars per day for offenders placed in iimpatlent substance abuse . mental health treatment programs. SECTION 13. Article 1 of title 17, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl. Vol. , as amended, is amended BY THE PAGE 7-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 ,51 901 :4`. i M 14)x• i.• S ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: .4. 17-1-114.17-1-114. Pool of funds - continuance of community supe d in the fundrtosbenknownhase is thehereby communitytesupervisionate treasury a supplemental fund, which shall consist of moneys appropriated by the general assembly. :All moneys in the fund shall be subject to withdrawal by the department of corrections, the judicial• department, or the department of public safety for the purpose supervision,ng probation ty supervision,supervision, community corrections programs, or home electronic monitoring over offenders who would otherwise be of resources., Such moneys emay beoved t withdrawn o secure cupon da request y due to lbykthe department of corrections, the judicial departmentl or the department of public safety which is made. to the director of the office of ate planing and budgeting. The director of the office ot ...nate planning and budgeting, in consultation with the joint buu wt•`conMRittee; shall approve or disapprove the request made by each department and budget the amount of * such request. Any withdrawal approved by the director of the office of state planning and budgeting shall be dispersed to the department making the request. SECTION 14. 24-37-103 1988 Repl. Vol. , is amended B ) Colorado Revised Y THE ADDITION OFANEW PARAGRAPH :Vitt to read: • 24-37-103.- Director - duties. (1) (e) Approve or disapprove, after consultation with the joint budget committee, requests moneys the community supplemental fundcreatedpursuant to section 17-1-114, C.R.S. SECTION 15. . . 17-2-103 (4) (a) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl. Vol . , is amended to read: 17-2-103. Arrest of parolee - revocation proceedings. (4) (a) If, rather than issuing a summons, a parole officer makes an arrest of a parolee, with or without a warrant, or LP the parolee _ is,rotherwise arrested, �, thetp,aroleeTshalltbe held, in•acounty jail' OR' A PREPAROLE FACILITYr° OR PROGRAM pending action by the parole officer pursuant to subsection (5) of this section. SECTION 16. Part 1 of article 11 of title 16, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol. , as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: 16-11-102.5. Oruq testing of offenders by judicial department - pilot program. (1) The judicial department is le a authorized and directe d to develo nas soon soduri pilot program for the drug testing of person during PAGE 8-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 9.31249` w, presentence investigation and on probation. Such program shall include testing of persons during presentence investigation and may include random drug testing when an offender is assigned to specialized treatment and rehabilitation programs. (2) On or before January 1, 1992, the judicial department shall submit a written report to the general assembly regarding the effectiveness of the pilot program established pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. Such report shall include statistics on the number of persons tested, the percentage of offenders who tested positive for drug use, and a report on the overall effectiveness of the pilot program, the success of the specialized treatment and rehabilitation programs, and information concerning whether any increase or decrease in probation revocations can be identified due to the pilot program. SECTION 17. 18-1.5-101 (1) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl .'• Vol .. as amended, is REPEALED AND REENACTED, WITH AMENDMENTS, to read: 18-1.5-101. Criminal justice commission creation. (1) (a) In order to provide legislative overview of and a study of the criminal justice system in, this state and to develop recommendations for legislation improving the criminal justice system, there is hereby created in the department of public safety the criminal justice commission, referred to in this article as the "commission". The commission shall consist of the following nineteen members: Five members of the house of representatives, three of whom shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, and two of whom shall be appointed by the minority leader of the house of representatives; five members of the senate, three of whom shall be appointed by the president of the senate, and two of whom shall be appointed by the minority leader of the senate; and nine members appointed by the governor. Of the nine members appointed by the governor, no more than five shall be from the same major political party. The nine members appointed by the governor shall not be members of the general assembly, and they shall be chosen from among the following groups: District attorneys, chiefs of police, the county sheriffs, community corrections, juvenile community corrections, public defenders, victims rights organizations, citizens' correctional reform groups, and at-large citizens. • (b) The commission shall choose a chairman and vice-chairman from among its members and may establish such organizational and procedural rules as are necessary. (c) The commission. may create subcommittees which may consist, , in part, of persons who are not members of the PAGE 9-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 Hfk- 9212 `a"', ?ss commission, and such persons may have a vote on such subcommittee but shall not have any vote at a meeting of the • whole commission. (d) Any subcommittee created by the commission pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subsectibn (1) may include, but shall not be limited to, members representing the departments of corrections, public safety, or institutions, the state board of parole, the •attorney general , the judicial department, district attorneys, chiefs of police, the county sheriffs, community corrections, public defenders; a victims' rights organization, and a citizens' correctional' reform group. SECTION 18. 18-1.5-102 (1) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl. Vol . , as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPHS to read: 18-1.5-102. Criminal justice commission - duties. 4 (1) (1) Study and make recommendations concerning the development of cooperative programs or policies with the aim of better utilizing scarce resources to fight drug abuse in the criminal justice system; (m) Study and make recommendations concerning the reduction of drug use by offenders at all levels of the criminal justice syStem; (n) Study and make recommendations concerning sanctions and treatment for the use of drugs by an offender while such offender is under the supervision of the criminal justice system; (o) Study and make recommendations concerning the development of programs which improve the cost benefit ratio c of offender sanctions or . treatment programs and the recommendation of the elimination of programs which are not successful or are duplicative of other programs within the criminal justice system; (p) Study and make recommendations concerning the reduction of recidivism among offenders leaving the supervision of the criminal justice system; and (q) At the request of the capital development committee, share with the committee its preliminary findings and recommendesigneddattoons concerninalleviate g theposed need sentencing additionalmodifications capital construction projects and to alleviate the impact of overcrowding on the county jails without endangering the welfare and safety of the public. The capital development comthemittee criminalhall justicensider the commission preliminary deliberationsendations of concerning PAGE 10-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 921249 recommendations for capacity needs in the correctional system. SECTION 19. Article 22.5 of title 17, Colorado Revised • Statutes, 1986 Repi . Vol. , as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PART to read: • PART 4 ;-- ,, PAROLE ELIGIBILITY AND DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY 1 .) \i - ' 17-22.5-401. Legislative declaration. The general assembly hereby declares that if any inmate does not ,, ,4,. eration, such s„ demonstrate positive behavior during incarc inmate should be required to serve out the full sentence, imposed 'J positive behavin oreduringfinc iceration, suuch inmate. Irt-any chrinmat dshoultrabe' -, ` � positive; behavior during incarceration, such inmate should` be or to the.end-of the full ste cn a imposed u enpon him:', Therefore, the general . , assembly,_ in enacting this part 4, intends to provide c.1. -S- ' ''' standards whereby any inmate -, can earn a • •:reduction of incarceration time and to provide incentives for inmates to demonstrate positive behavior during incarceration. 17-22.5-402. Discharge from custody. (1) No inmate shall be discharged from the department until he has remained • ' �> the full term for which he was sentenced, to be computed on = t--, and after the date upon which the sentence becomes effective --t and excluding any time the inmate may have been at large by -- .1 reason of escape therefrom, unless he is pardoned or otherwise p 'ci <1, released by legal authority. • .1 ;i t (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the -,S full term for which an inmate is sentenced shall be reduced by , J any earned time granted pursuant to section 17-22.5-405, . , (,) except as proQided in section 17-22.5-403 (3) . F) -`.. (3) This part 4 shall not apply to any offender to whom t section 17-22.5-104 (2) applies. 17-22.5-403. Parole eligibility. (1) Any person sentenced for a`class 2 class -3 'class=4,'class' 5, or7Clas"s16 --) 10000 shall be eligible for parole after. he hasdserved .fi,fty percent%ofthesentence: imposed upon him, less any time authorized for earned time granted pursuant to section 17-22.5-405. However, the date established by this subsection (1) upon which any person shall be eligible for parole may be • extended' by the executive director for misconduct during incarceration. The executive director shall promulgate rules and regulations concerning when and under what conditions any inmate's parole eligibility date may be extended. Such rules and regulations shall be promulgated in such a manner as to promote fairness and consistency in the treatment of all PAGE 11-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 i :,. 921249 • inmates. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, any person convicted and sentenced for second degree murder, first degree assault, first degree kidnapping unless the first degree kidnapping is a class 1 felony, first or second degree sexual assault; first degree arson, first degree burglary, or aggravated robbery, which person has previously been convicted of a crime which would have 'been a crime ofviolence as defined in section 16-11-309; C.R.S. , shall be eligible for parole after the; has• served", seventy-five percent of the sentence imposed upon him, less any time authorized for earned time granted pursuant to section 17-22.5-405. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2) of this section, any person convicted and sentenced for any crime enumerated in subsection (2) of this section, WAIIIMMa twice pritriauslt been evicted for a crime which wouldetave been a crime of violenceri<tt defined, in section 16-11-309, C.R.S. , Abe11 be eligiblt for parole after he has served seventy-five percent of the sentence served upon him, at which time he shall be referred by the department to the state board of parole which may place such person on parole for a period of time which does not exceed the time remaining on such person' s original sentence. Section 17-22.5-402 (2) shall not apply to any such offender. (4) The governor may grant parole to an inmate to whom subsection (2) or (3) of this section applies prior to such inmate' s parole eligibility date or discharge date if, in the governor' s opinion, extraordinary mitigating circumstances exist and such inmate' s release from institutional custody is compatible with the safety and welfare of society. (5) Upon application for parole, the state board of parole, working in conjunction with the department and using the guidelines established pursuant to section 17-22.5-404, • shall determine whether or not to grant parole and, if granted, the length of the period of parole. The state board of parole may set the length of the period of parole for any time period up to the date of final discharge as determined in accordance with section 17-22.5-402. If an application for parole is refused by the state board of parole, the state board of parole shall reconsider within one year thereafter whether such inmate should be granted parole. The state board of parole shall continue such reconsideration each year thereafter until such inmate is granted parole or. until he is discharged pursuant to law. (6) For persons who are granted parole pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, the division of adult services • shall provide parole supervision and assistance in securing PAGE 12-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 931249 . employment, housing, and such other services as may affect the successful reintegration of such offender into the community while recognizing the need for public safety. The conditions for parole for any such offender under this subsection (6) shall be established pursuant•to section 17-22.5-404 by the state board of parole prior to such offender's release from - 'incarceration.'- Upon a determination that the conditions of parole have .been violated in a parole revocation proceeding, the state board of parole shall continue the parole in effect, modify the conditions of parole if circumstances then shown to exist require such modifications, which circumstances shall be set forth in writing, or revoke the parole and order the return of the offender to a place of confinement designated by the executive director for any period of time up to the period remaining on such person's sentence until the discharge date as determined by section 17-22.5-402 or one year, whichever is longer. In computing the period of reincarceration, the time between the offender's release on parole and the revocation of such parole shall not be considered to be part of the term of the sentenee. The state board of parole may offender granted parole under this section discharge at any time the term of parole upon a determination that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and can no longer benefit from parole supervision. 17-22.5-404. Parole guidelines. (1) As to any person sentenced for a class 2, class 3, class 4, class 5, or class 6 felony who is eligible for parole pursuant to section 17-22.5-403, the board may consider all applications for parole, as well as all persons to be esis sentenced under any . interstate compacc t, and may parole any person who or committed to a correctional facility when the board determines, by using the guidelines established by this section, that there is a strong and reasonable probability that the person will not thereafter violate the law and that his release from institutional custody is compatible with the Welfare of society. The board- shall first consider the rislli of violence to the Rub11`c`1n'eJerrelease"deCwision It make • .w...r.J.nr-••r.i oJl..lAt (2) (a) In considering offenders for parole, the board shall consider, but need not be limited to, the following factors: (I) The testimony of the victim of the crime or a relative of the victim,"1f"the"victim has dial, pursuant to section 17-22.5-106; (II) The offender's conduct which would indicate whether he has absfan£ ll QAjcrved<aflc theYrule a`.niOre ul1tiorif iofthe'tanstittITOATFesfacilftj4 in which he has been confined and has faithfully performed the duties assigned to him; PAGE 13-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 • • 921249 '.. 1 r-',3.'.' (III) The offender' s demonstration of good faith efforts to actual e damagestion thato the were victim of sustained, his pursuantconduct for to section 17-2-201 (5) (c) ; (IV) The offender' s demonstration of good faith efforts to _. pay reasonable. costs of parole supervision pursuant to section 17-2-201 (5) (b); (V) The offender's demonstration of good faith efforts to devote time to a specific employment or occupation; - (VI) The offender' s good faith efforts to enroll in a school ,technicalcotraining llege undesigned� to r fit uthe student rse of vocational for gainful employment; (VII) Whether the offender has diligently attempted but has been unable to obtain employment that provides the offender sufficient,: income,whether the offender's age prevents omther the n der has an employment handicap, or him from obtaining employment; (VIII) The offender's demonstration of good faith efforts to remain within prescribed geographical boundaries and notify the court- or the parole officer of any change in the offender' s address or employment; (IX) The offender' s demonstration of good faith efforts to report as directed to the parole officer; (X) The offender's demonstration of good faith efforts to participate in some type of community service work; �[ (XI) The offender has not harassed the victim either MIN yerbally or in writing; (XII) The offender' s demonstration of good faith efforts to provide support, including any court-ordered child support, for any minor children; • (XIII) The offender's participation in the literacy corrections programs. (b) Nothing in this subsection (2) shall preclude the board from considering factors other than those considering ed applicantsparagraph (a) of this subsection (2) applicants for parole. (3) (a) The' board shall consider the following extraordin the conditionsafor parole ry aand glength uofta parole nces he n determining supervision when PAGE 14-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 921249'` • such aggravating circumstances show that an offender has a high risk of recidivism or a high risk of violekrce: r (I) The crime involved serious bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, .viciousness, or callousness. (II) The offender was armed with or used a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the offense. (III) The offense involved multiple victims. • (IV) The victim was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age, disability, ill health, or extreme youth. (V) The offender' s conduct was . directed at an active officer of the court or at an active or former judicial officer, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, peace officer, correctional employee, or fireman during or because of the exercise of his official duties. (VI) The offender induced others to participate in the commission of the offense or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission. (VII) The Offender took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense. (VIII) The offender committed the offense pursuant to an agreement that he either pay or be paid for its commission. (IX) The circumstances surrounding the offense indicate that the crime was carried out following substantial planning and deliberation. • (X) The object of the crime was to acquire_or to . Obtain conl `�`"troifp a"controlled substance or:other item or material; the possession of which is illegal . (XI) The offender has engaged in a pattern of violent conduct which indicates a serious danger to society. (XII) The offender was on parole or on probation for another felony when he committed the offense. (XIII) The offender was charged with or was on bond for a previous felony when he committed the offense, and for which previous felony he was subsequently convicted. (XIV) The offender was under confinement in prison or in any correctional institution within this state as a convicted felon, or was an escapee from any correctional institution • PAGE 15-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 • 931249 `i}LeA 2 i �,l9 within this state or another state when he committed the offense. (XV) The offender has numerous or increasingly serious convictions as an adult or adjudications of delinquency as a juvenile. (b) Nothing 'in n this subsection (3) shall preclude the board from considering aggravating circumstances other than those stated in paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) when considering applicants for parole. • (4) (a) The board shall consider the following extraordinary mitigating circumstances when determining the conditions • for parole and length of parole supervision which show that an offender has a low risk of recidivism or a low risk of violence: (I) The offender was a passive participant or played a minor role in ,the commission of the offense. (II) The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident. (III) Substantial grounds exist tending to excuse or justify the offender's conduct; though failing to establish a defense. (IV) The offender committed the crime under duress, coercion, threat, or compulsion, insufficient to constitute a complete defense but which significantly affected his conduct. (V) The offender has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time prior to the commission of the offense. (VI) The offender voluntarily acknowledges wrongdoing or evidences remorse or penitence for his criminal conduct. (VII) The offender is responsible for the maintenance or financial support of others and, to avoid undue hardship to his dependents, a shorter period of incarceration is warranted. • (VIII) Rehabilitation of the offender would be enhanced by imposing a shorter period of . incarceration. (IX) Before the parole hearing, the offender compensated, or made a good faith effort to compensate, the victim of the Criminal conduct for any damage or injury sustained. • PAGE 16-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 • 821249 • (b) Nothing in this subsection (4) shall preclude the board from considering mitigating circumstances other than those stated in paragraph (a) of this subsection (4) when considering applicants for parole. (5) The division of adult services shall develop a form incorporating the guidelines set forth in subsections (2) , - (3) , and (4) of this section, which form shall be used by the members of the board when considering each application for parole. Such form shall be accompanied by the parolegli , arrest record. Such form shall . be mAPIL::3X0))4Bic any? Intl of the public who requests 1t' 7 (6) In addition to the guidelines contained in subsections (2) , (3) , and (4) of this section, the division of criminal justice in the department of public safety shall develop objective parole criteria which shall also be used by the state board of parole in evaluating inmates for parole. Such criteria shall be subject to the approval of the Colorado commission • , on .parole guidelines established pursuant to subsection (7) of this section and the general assembly by bill in the next regular session of the general assembly following approval by the commission on parole guidelines. As used in this subsection (6) , "objective parole criteria" means the criteria which statistically have been shown to be good predictors of risk to society of release on parole. (7) (a) There is hereby established in the department of public safety the Colorado commission on parole guidelines. The commission shall consist of the attorney general who shall serve as chairperson, the executive director of the department of public safety, the executive director of the department of corrections, the chairperson of the state board of parole, the chairperson of a community corrections board, a parole officer, a law enforcement officer, and a private citizen. The latter four members shall be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate. The director of the division of criminal justice of the department of public safety shall serve as an ex officio member of the commission. (b) The commission established pursuhis subsection (7) shall have the power to approve objective which • eareiteria, as developed byfthed in division ofion (6)criminalf this section, justice. 17-22.5-405. Earned time. (1) Earned time, to? * f exceedtenhs for each month of incarceration or parole, may be deducted from the inmate' s sentence upon a demonstration to rout the department by. the inmate, which is certified by the inmate's case manager or parole officer, that he has made Sun consistent progress in the following categories as required by the department of corrections: 1/Mk PAGE 17-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 5.1tralio �$1 9u1249 • '.•' X14 %. (a)(a) Work and training, including attendance, promptness, performance, cooperation, care of materials, and safety; (b) Group living, including housekeeping, personal hygiene, cooperation, social adjustment, and double bunking; (c) Participation in counseling sessions and involvement in self-help groups; • (d) Progress toward the goals and programs established ' by the Colorado diagnostic program; (e) For any inmates who have been paroled, compliance with the conditions of parole release; . GALA (f) The offender has not harassed the victim either +UT verbally or in writing; 4 est (g) The inmate has made positive progress, in accordance with performance standards established by the department, in the literacy corrections program or the correctional education program established pursuant to article 30 of this title. (2) The department shall develop objective standards for measuring consistent progress in the categories listed in subsection (1) of- this section. Such standards shall be applied in all evaluations of inmates for the earned time . authorized in this section. (3) For each inmate sentenced to the custody of the ' department, or for each parolee, the department shall review the performance record of the inmate or parolee and may grant, withhold, withdraw, or restore, consistent with the provisions of this section, an earned time deduction from the sentence \�' imposed. Such review shall .be conducted annually while such �p / person is incarcerated and semiannually while such person is �i // • on parole and shall vest upon 'being granted. However, any Cj�/J�"� earned time granted to a parolee shall vest upon completion of any semiannual review unless an administrative hearing within '� the department determines that such parolee engaged in ( 1 p' criminal activity during the time period for which such earned wd ime was ranted.Jn which case the earned time arante during s eriod maywn& In addition to any other sanctions, executive director may refer to the district j attorney all cases where the offender tests positive for the 3 1 1�"�' }' '} presence of drugs. 4"1 j� sett to ono (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, ti� i earned time may not redue the sentence of any inmate as N' j .2444) defined in section 17-22.5-402 (1) by a period of time which 2 j is more than twenty-five percent of the sentence. (f 4 rIt 18-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 (l/ • 91249 °' • 17-22.5-406. Applicability of part. (1) (a) This part 4 applies to all offenders sentenced for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1979. \k .�• a (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection (< <,�, i (i ,! (1) , the amount of earned time which may be credited pursuant r (i l • . ,' i to this part 4 .to any inmate incarcerated on or before July 1, r 4d3 1990, shall not exceed the amount of earned time actually >;1) \, 'J- ., earned by such inmate pursuant to earned time provisions in , i.0i . ` effect prior to July 1, 1990. • t to (c) If the application of the provisions of this N_ subsection (1) would result in the early discharge of any . f( \" offender, the department shall refer such offender to the � state 'board of parole which may, in its discretion, grant or , —,'�C ,deny parole using the guidelines established pursuant to section 17-22.5-404, discharge the offender or place such offender under conditional parole supervision. If the offender is placed on parole pursuant to this paragraph (c) , the state board of parole may revoke the parole granted to such inmate for a period not to exceed the amount of earned time granted to the offender pursuant to this�,partt 4 rod a� airy (d) �,tn.t��i; ,luhse�Lion l halllbe construed atj a°man"_date to a ; ate board of parole to'release any inmate;7 (e) It any inmate incarcerated prior to the effective date of this section has not ...:trued ..y earned time prior to such date, the provisions of law in effect at the time of such inmate' s sentencing shall apply to such inmate in determining such inmate's discharge date. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, no ffender incarcerated on the effective date of this section hall be released pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section unless the department of corrections makes a written certification that the offender has met the conditions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) and at least two j additional of the following criteria: ( c. (a) The offender has not used controlled substances, lexcept pursuant to the prescription of a physician, for at Uu least one year prior to such certification. `\ i.„ (b) The offender has engaged in a satisfactory A'*1 participation in available educational programs during his incarceration. (c) The offender has engaged in a satisfactory participation in any treatment programs indicated in his diagnostic evaluation. , PAGE 19-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 9a1249 • 16 i t,s (d) The offender has had no serious infractions of the CS ' iti1 1R ' penal code of discipline for at least two years. S No i / (fr- $. 1 (e) The offender has had an exemplary work record while & O Q - being incarcerated under the custody of the department of corrections. (I! (3) This part 4 shall not apply to any offender who is presently incarcerated who does not meet the appropriate • criteria stated in subsection (2) of this section: Any such offender' s sentence shall be governed by provisions in existence prior to the effective date of this section. (4) The state board of parole shall make a biannual report to the general assembly on January 1 and July 1 of each year which shall include themfollowing information: (a) The number of persons released by the state board of parole pursuant to this part 4 during the preceding six months; (b) The names of such persons; (c) The previous records of such persons; • (d) The length of time such persons were incarc, ted; and (e) The reasons why the state board of parole determined that the release of such persons would be appropriate. E LEON--20. 16-8-114.5 (1) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol . , is amended to read: ;• �` 16-8-114.5. Commitment - termination of proceedings. I �- (1) A defendant committed to the department of institutions \,, or otherwise confined as •a result of a determination of O incompetency to proceed shall not remain confined for a period in excess of the maximum term of confinement which could be imposed for the offenses with which he is charged less m4n4mum good EARNED time to which he would be entitled under seet4en 7-22.i-1911-C.R.$. ARTICLE 22.5 OF TITLE 17, C.R.S. EC_S TI0N 21. 16-14-103 (1) (a) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol . , is amended to read: 16-14-103. Duties of superintendent upon delivery of request. (1) (a) Certify the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served on the sentence, the time remaining to be served, the geed EARNED time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state board of parole relating to the PAGE 20-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 • 9:1249 prisoner; and SECTION 22. 17-1-111, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol. , is amended to read: 17-1-111. Certain provisions of the administrative procedure act not to apply. The provisions of this title _relating to the management, discipline, and classification of /keyinmates, INCLUDING OBJECTIVE PAROLE CRITERIA APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON PAROLE GUIDELINES CREATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 17-22.5-404 (7) , shall not be subject to section 24-4-103, 24-4-105, or 24-4-106, C.R.S. SECTION 23. 17-24-114 (3) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol . , is amended to read: 17-24-114. Provisions for offenders. (3) The division of adult services is empowered to grant good EARNED time allowances CONSISTENT WITH PART 4 OF ARTICLE 22.5 OF TITLE 17, C.R.S. , and' furlough in relation to an offender' s work performance and evaluation, as recommended by the director. SECTION 24. 17-22.5-104 (1) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl. Vol . , is amended to read: 17-22.5-104. Parole - regulations. (1) Milk Inmate in the custody of ' the department who--has-sepved-the-minimum pecied-ef-t4me-paeseribed-by-his-seatenee may Wallowed to go on parole IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 17-22.5-403, subject to the provisions and conditions contained in this article and article 2 of this title. SECTION 25. 18-1-105, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol. , as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read: 18-1-105. Felonies classified - presumptive penalties. (9.5) The presence of any one or more of the following sentence enhancing circumstances shall require the court, if it sentences the defendant to incarceration, to sentence the defendant to a term of at least the minimum in the presumptive range but not more than twice the maximum term authorized in the presumptive range for the punishment of a felony: (a) The defendant was charged with or was on bond for a previous felony at the time of the commission of the felony, for which previous felony the defendant was subsequently convicted; (b) At the time of the commission of the felony, the defendant was on bond for having pled guilty to a lesser offense when the original offense charged was a felony; PAGE 21-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 91249 (c) The defendant was under a deferred judgment and sentence for another felony, at the time of the commission of the felony; (d) At the time of the commissir. , of the felony, the defendant was on parole for• , ha. .. j been adjudicated a delinquent child for an offense which would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. • SECTION 26. 24-33.5-303 (6) , Colorado Revised Statutes, 1988 Repl . Vol . , as amended, is amended to read: 24-33.5-303. Definitions. (6) "Peace officer" means an investigator for a district attorney or the attorney general if designated for training under this part 3 by such district attorney or by the attorney general , any sheriff who elects to be certified pursuant to this part 3, undersheriff, deputy sheriff other than one appointed with authority only to receive and serve summons and civil process, police officer, Colorado state patrol officer, PAROLEsecurity OIER EMPLOYED D PURSUANT TO SECTION. 17-2-102 (3) , C.R.S. , employed and commissioned pursuant to article 7 of this title at a state institution of higher education, or town marshal , which "peace officer" is engaged in full-time employment by the state or a city, city and county, town, judicial district, or county within this state, OF any reserve police officer, reserve deputy sheriff, or reserve marshal , if designated for training as a peace officer under this part 3 by a chief of police, sheriff, or marshal, or any full-time officer of the Southern Ute Indian police force or Ute Mountain Ute Indian police force who is certified pursuant to this part 3 or otherwise qualified under subseet#en---(2)---e€ section 24-33.5-307 (2) . SECTION 27•.• Repeal. , 18-1-105 (9) (a) (IV) , (9) (a) (IV.5) , (9) (a) (VI) , and (9) (a) (VII) , Colorado Revised 1 ° Statutes, 1986 Repl . Vol . , as amended, are repealed. SECTION 28. Appropriation. In addition to any other `.) }. ' appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys , . in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to the community supervision supplemental fund created pursuant to ',„(}. section 17-1-114, Colorado Revised Statutes, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990, the sum of five hundred thousand Pb) •,• dollars ($500,000) . \ ;1 \ SECTION 29. Appropriation. In addition to any other !i '.' ti' (./,. appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys `\\\ / in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to the b r \' judicial department, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, r .i}�' 1990, the sum of two hundred twenty-seven thousand two hundred v ' fifty-six dollars ($227,256) and 4.0 FTE, or so much thereof \-1 w,:. PAGE 22-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 9::1249 as may be necessary, for the implementation of sections 7 and ,, • t;{ 8 of this act. f 1,�; u , +. SECTION 30. Appropriation. In addition to any other fit appropriation, there Is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to the �' J 4 department of corrections, for the fiscal year beginning July �•.) i.) , r' 1, 1990, the sum of nine hundred thirty-one thousand four , i hundred eighty dollars ($931,480) , or so much thereof as may , \ be necessary, for the implementation of section 10 of this act. ! \ (1 SECTION 31. Appropriation. In addition to any other appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys ,'V 1 ' .(''� in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to the ` ' { ' '.. department of public safety, for the fiscal year beginning \� July 1, 1990, the sum of three hundred twenty-eight thousand • five hundred dollars ($328,500), or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the implementation of section 11 of this act. V SECTION 32. 'Appropriation. In addition to any other • appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to . the ol') 1' department of public safety, for the fiscal year beginning ; t July 1, 1990, the sum of one million six hundred forty-six ` thousand two hundred five dollars ($1,646,205) , or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the implementation of section \\L 12 of this act. ti ; SECTION 33. Appropriation. In addition to any other ,.j • '.. appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys c` in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to the t7• judicial department, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990, the sum of seven hundred fifty thousand dollars u '' ($750,000) , and 18.5 FTE,• or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the implementation of section 16 of this act.. \\ • '\ SECTION 34. Appropriation. In addition to any other \\\'N appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, to the department of corrections, out of any moneys iq the general fund not fu\'' otherwise appropriated, the sum of one million one hundred :,\L\-)sixty-one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,161,600) , and 17.0 • FTE,; or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the implementation of sections 19 through 24 of this act. SECTION 35. Appropriation. (1) In addition to any other appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, to the department of corrections, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990, the sum of seventy-one million five hundred eighty-five thousand three hundred ninety dollars ($71,585,390) , or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the implementation of this act, as follows: PAGE 23-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 9x1249 (a) Fifty-seven million six hundred forty thousand dollars ($57,640,000) shall be for the close facility at Canon City; (b) Ten million ni• •. hundred fifty-six thousand dollars ($10,956,000) shall bL the women's facility in Denver; (c) Six hundred twelve thousand eight hundred seventy-eight dollars ($612,878) and 25.0 FTE for the implementation and coordination of the construction of the facilities authoriked in this act; (d) One million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000) shall be for the warehouse facility; (e) One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) shall be for . preliminary site engineering work at the Trinidad and Sterling prison site locations: and (f) Nine hundred seventy-six thousand five hundred twelve dollars ($976,512) shall be for computer systems replacement. (2) Of the amount appropriated in subsection (1), of this section, forty-six million seven hundred eighty-three thousand nine hundred eight 'dollars ($46,783,908) shall be from the l'(•�; capital construction fund as follows: /n� ' r..�y L (a) Thirty million three hundred thousand dollars \tJ ($30,300,000) is appropriated from moneys transferred to the �}�, capital construction fund as of the last day of the fiscal F ;S year 1989-90 and which are available for appropriation pursuant to section 24-75-201.1 (1) (c) (V), Colorado Revised Statutes, as enacted by Senate Bill 90-163 and further amended c by House Bill 90-1323, enacted at the Second Regular Session \` , -) of the Fifty-seventh General Assembly. �< <„ (b) Sixteen million four hundred eighty-three thousand `( , nine hundred eight dollars ($16,483,908) is appropriated from ( , moneys transferred to the capital construction fund as of the / last day of the fiscal year 1988-89 and which are"-available for appropriation pursuant to section 24-75-201.1 (1) (c) (I) , Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended by Senate Bill 90-163 enacted at the Second Regular Session of the Fifty-seventh General Assembly. (3) The _ remainder of the amount appropriated in subsection (1) of this section, twenty-four million eight hundred one thousand four hundred eighty-two dollars ($24,801,482) , shall be from the general fund pursuant to section 24-75-201.1 (1) (d) (IV) , Colorado Revised Statutes, as enacted by House Bill 90-1323 at the Second Regular Session PAGE 24-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 • 921249 of the Fifty-seventh General Assembly. Of such amount, six hundred twelve thousand eight hundred seventy-eight dollars ($612,878) shall be for the expenses described in paragraph c) of subsection (1) of this section, and nine hundred seventy-six thousand f . hundred twei +e dollars ($976,512), shall be for computer systems _replaceu:ant. (4) In addition to any other appropriation, there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the general fund not otherwise appropriated, to the department of public safety, for allocation to the Colorado bureau of investigation, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990, the sum of two million nine hundred thousand dollars ($2,900,000) , or so much thereof as may be necessary, for computer systems replacement. (5) The general assembly has determined that the provisions of sections 3 through 5 of this act can be implemented within existing appropriations, and therefore no separate appropriation of state moneys is necessary to carry out the purposes of sections 3 through 5 of this act. SECTION 36. Applicability. Sections 7, 8, 25, and 27 of this act shall app y to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1990. SECTION 37. : Safety clause. The general assembly hereby • • PAGE 25-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 • 921249 finds, determines, and 'declares that this act is necessary for • ' the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. .. Qhfieike:a., . a�l�� e Ted L. Strickland SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PRESIDENT OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE ' . Bahrych Joan M. Albi C IEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE 2a......n. "fll 4..a4; SECRETARY OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE • APPROVED O 7 /7,41---AC-7-3,74(5701/1N GOV •NOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO • PAGE 26-HOUSE BILL 90-1327 • 9.1249 OCT-05-93 TUE 16 :00 BLEY ASSOCIATES 30302919 P. 01 jars'( `']4'rl.6Catx- �o . . I Vt ) � - 4 EXHIBIT 1 BLEY ASSOCIATES . FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER LETTER From Machine No. 303-330-2919 M DELIVER TO Asti (r 5LS t; 0 FROM vuHI.I %OWL • cn A DATE 1015 /0i5 TIME 4:CLI �1—) NO. OF PAGES 1 * rAsis -p-I is 'C E- . PROJECT irt •/v ar.txp '&4/141 eler g: MESSAGE c 'L'l)1 OttP0 1t ✓) '/�No0 Gk-4. ffeINIde -10 L . M 6N'�01.-7 J h71JLc e y Clr t°aL (65rga-ThifitU 0 2 O 0 a w ta z 2 t 0CT 5 ' 93 16: 00 3033302919 PRGE . 001 9u1249 OCT-05-93 TUE 16 :00 PLEY ASSOCIATES 3033302919 P. 02 BP They can't climb it. Buyun 6145 They can't cut it. ChairiGuardTM. Available in three types of material: DUFtABONDts PVC Pressure bonded wire DURAGALv'" Zinc coated wire DURALUM"Aluminum coated wire Worldwide G LR ` Installations MFG. B &wND \.J art,ni '`;, ,, -WIRE DIVISION , ati-X . 40 1,0 s' .adr• • Sri.'41P---- OW . :. -', -- -...: '' -- , lip • c, Allp- ./dpaiii: a, , , . • / All.. Wt., at --z- - lipis_, , ,e__ . , _ 1111' ,.witHeitte, . .._ ay ,dp , , „, , .. r / ._ / :_,.. ... ... , _ - ,._. , 7 - - / ,v,.., ___ illp tete t 4040'• _ <4A dip , _ '4,4444'44-7e. 411‘t jtIATI: ,I . ' 2;:-. Or..ir j...... eil ..fie zw Jae.. Apt , . k e, 4:44, .r .L*i .•Ito . �_�� . 3/8 inch mesh ,r� • •�O::0r��. -.:411:;. • ,j ` PYC toutei Cl1DI11Guard,• r4 as�'=y!;d ►ss- •r. /- Maximum Security Fencing ''� a . s 1 (shown actual size) r ANTI- TERRORIST::-.,57,7„....., ..... .....„,..::. :4.. . .......... .........„..........„ , I MESH "Perimeter Security for the World" OCT 5 ' 93 16 : 01 3033302919 PAGE . 002 &1249 OCT-05-93 TUE 16 :01 "LEY ASSOCIATES 303302919 P. 03 i ChainGuard'maximum security fencing is extra-tough heavy gauge steel wire fabricated into tightly woven chainlink fencing.Whether your client needs a barrier to keep inmates in or ?\� \�� \�r�''��q" /\•��\�� intruders out,ChainGuard'fencing is engineered �i\�'\�j' 0 a ct to meet or exceed every spec in the book. �� cct a (Fed.spec.-RR-F-191/1C,ASTM-A491-80). \� \ '—+ -"p a w4,444.4444.fro ��i4 • �'4a4�♦% Uneatable? ChainGuard"fencing's strong 9 or 11 gauge ., *11�\� 4 ,v vj ' ��yl 1, tight mesh presteel wire uires vents cutting access duty cutting tools, but the \ �� 4 kettOt ��Otte' ��.�AiA�� CHAINGUARD"FENCING CAWF BE CUT ��a�A � \��\4, •� The same qualities that make ChainGuard" I ��\�•�\ *4 fencing��\��j uncutablefThet to scale also make it tightrnesh prevents accessily to �I,��- the most so histicated hand cutters. ��Ar��4, •• Frustrating and effective... �� 0A,��, , CHAINGUARD"FENCING ISNON-PENEI RAB[E \\�'•A �� a�\• It's impossible to pass even the smallest •�� \ . handgun or knife through the tight mesh of a ��\, ChainGuard"fence,To deter smaller items, ChainGuard"can be ordered to meet specifications CHAINGUARD"IS NONCLIMBABLE. for even finer heavy duty mesh,A more tightly Tightly woven ChainGuard"fencing features woven grade of ChainGuard" fencing can be 3/8"diamond mesh--it's impossible for even a specified for absolute bullet-proof integrity. child to gain a handhold or toehold for climbing. Only two things can penetrate a ChainGuard" Conventional 2"mesh can't offer that kind of maximum security fence—sound and light. security.And the 3/8"mesh is just the beginning: Communication and visibility are important ChainGuard"fencing is also available in 1/4", 1/2", benefits of the mesh barrier.When observation is 5/8"and 1"diamond mesh, a must--in a prison or in any other institution— �yy specify ChainGuard'"fencing. •i 1/4.4 •� TM —III -Cliff- if, f 1 f 1eicaszenrewereasirm. ' ' 1 W'„`,. 0� '',rrYt��t�t�r11'�IIIIi�1111111td1111a111HIai ili fttiutf iin`ma a �— ' «7\,�'VOWS?) iif,;,pnurriantrnrriarie t riiil/siiri+'� �%�irnri .��".." 0ii,• p :`:/./ , •. . ^.•: ♦ 10 "Mimi ftur"I�o.I.THY. 93'., ItWjllilPU".. F_On...." �.,E _ Super secure! You can special cider ChainGuard"fencing in roll heights up to 20 feet for super secure,seamless installations. 2 OCT 5 ' 93 16: 02 3033302919 PAGE .103 a1249 OCT-05-93 TUE 16 :02 ALEY ASSOCIATES 303-'302919 P. 04 ChainGuare fencing provides outstanding 02830/DBP burst strength,too—up to 81,750 pounds BuyLine 6145 per foot(of height).That's 9 times stronger - . _-1i— _ ._ . Ti1 _-- - -= than a conventional chain link fence. ` `, ` �s\\� WHERE SHOULD YOU SPECIFY CHAINGUARO" Wks \�x„ MAXIMUM SECURITY FENCING? Il I •'RISONER CONTAINMENT �a///I I ajor applications are outdoor , i , ....... .„„,„..., .../, ,:l ... ,,..I •t...a barriers for prisons,police stationsi••,L•,;^'•: ; ;® -.., and other detention centers where �� ;,�; :/.^ ,0 prisoner containment is the criterion. :•':.'. :',4:::,:F1,;:...:'''.. ,.,� ChainGuard"fencing should be used �• > .:,,454...0;;(":72:'" indoors and out,It allows ventilation,4!`:.'•..:'::r E^ • 'r. . observation and communication,yet ChainGuard"for highway safety.Highway departments have prevents escape—climbing,cutting installed ChainGuard"fencing as a median barrier—"with the and the transfer of weapons are added advantage—the close mesh screens oncoming virtually impossible. headlights. Some penal institutions combine ChainGuard'"fencing with a lower course of conventional chain link fencing to reduce material costs.This type of - MI combination fence defeats many of theH "" important security features of the ChainGuard"'fence.The conventional ssJ STEP 2 STEP I STEP 1 75,000 PURE BONDING PRESSURE 2"chain link portion is easy to cut and PSI STEEL ZINC LAYER BONDED WIRE accessible.Only a total ChainGuard" 221MILS THICK fence will provide maximum security. CORE COATED COATED VINYL ZINC TENSILE SOFT-SPOKEN SECURITY— WIRE WIRE WIRE WALL COATING STRENGTH GAUGE CADGE DIAN. TOIRRANCE THICKNESS DZ/Sm.FT PSI. ChainGuard"fencing is available in a 6 3 .260' .010" .034" .40 mom variety of colored vinyl coatings and 9 6 .182' .005° 022" 30 75,000 11 8 ,165' .005° A22" .30 75,000 can be specified to blend with the 12 9 u8" .005" ,021" „30 100,000• landscape for minimum visual intrusion. ii 11 .120' .003' .020" .25 75,000 Some of your clients require maximum security protection that doesn't call CORE COATED COATED +u WIRE WIRE WIRE MESH SIZES HEIGHT OF FABRIC attention to themselves.ChainGuard GAUGE CADGE DIAN. ,N. IN. fencing is Ideal for high security 6 3 .260' 2" 1W' installations where public curiosity 9 6 .192" 2° IV? 1° 36.42,48,60, is discouraged.Research facilities, 11 8 .165" 2" 10,/x" I" 12,84.96.108, g n 9 .140" a^ I=i<" 1" "/.• 1/1" >/.• 120,111,tse, financial centers,military bases and 14 11 .120" '1.' V1 V: 192.240 private residences can now enjoy Selvage Special heights KK KK total security without alarming K9 B I KK KK KK on m7ueel neighboring properties. BB / / / / / 3 OCT 5 ' 93 16: 03 3033302919 PAGE . 004 9Z41249 OCT-O5-93 TUE 16 :03 "LEY ASSOCIATES 303? 02919 P. 05 MSij •- VhS ! ` j i I ii it ..-4.414-..., Tai-7�:"1 "'f. r� r' ' �t,1 ill FA yiti '" a mZirlel 444'4-44 . iad:I CSa u "'� : ..M!, .,,. L 44 e r49,1,• ir 11"M i' )��'f 17 CS : 1 ' � / "" � t di a ` 1/4 I' Ie.1 I Y AIDS 7 110'A am .-4-*. � ' %` . '• 'iii `+�t►� I Large animal containment"CHAINGUARD""1'mesh. "Cf WNGUARD'" Bridge Overpass-To prevent discharge of objects onto traffic,r mesh Is being used at 15 zoo locations around the United States. "CHAINGUARD"". This product Is preferred by State and Federal agencies across the USAr i tip*, TB ,, -. ., ,.. , —,,,,_ ' \ .. .',. Me' 21 1 li• ,"it;0.41. it.. '‘.. •,0 1 -$''. } • ,1 4 k ri .ylylry,(,+ , It ,,1iiiI/.i .*4• Y .k Iry T`1. $ ( io �k. ,�.�ileu,1114, %' li��li��e��a/1'� ll ys mow Wat; 9A` a.t • I .0: ^ ncl q1' t' i+, s, Yi91'4;,.�1vvv�TI. . 7yp1�` lc .Ve v :AA. . � p 1''I7 1° 01;0 ii.�`�It is ki �. r I . V '1 I+r llv1 y� A M1 ( Illl of t 4rit. , •-is i•,`44'e•is,‘44; . %,„(44„itss%% %to t0- (4'iw .2 Z.,.. - Parking CarageScreen-Mesh was hoisted to the top of a 15 story Downtown parking garage-Deflection screen to keep objects from building In Minneapolis,MN. falling to the street below. 4 OCT 5 ' 93 16: 04 3033302919 PRGEE . 005 .C1z49 OCT-05-93 TUE 16 :04 ^LEY ASSOCIATES 303302919 P. 06 02830/DBP BuyLine 6145 "�• w ?. .4. it $f / J... ",. 1 _ - i•i re • J + F r.f I f 4.7P , 1V lx I' f41/1' � t .cn A"(qr, ,7'• li'% fh°,�i '1. I .. ' I i' i 't f ( �Y ." e...v'" 'F ,.a•v �`,. I�I .r. rp,,,:,-.,•-:-- 1 ! • I !. r l i ' ' ' J /f v �,Gb ,t 1.s „.• , ,,,:, , ' • 1 Vk i ! D ! i n A. d•y / ,GEC h 4v;a FY/r4 VJ ' Ire ' , � I c t ! f -z�a AR rf. '! '7. , <n'ys >•d.+ N J rx 4: - x1,1 ‘1%.1K' 1 `34 • y�. } �- } e '1 ,./•. - . l r 1 �1�a !'!s' r.LilYlNrifYlaYYo �r� f US Mexican Border•Super secure X" "CHAINGl1ARD secur ty United States Embassy Paris,FYance Rooftop security to deflect mesh-impossible to cut or cWnb. After many products have been RPG"(Rocket Propelled Grenade)attacks. tried,only"CHAINGUARD""stops the Row of illegal aliens from crossing the border. "CHAINGUARD""products are being specified all over the j world for many types of border containment. Q �ce v; �s t4 "1„ > • 3 60 tit. n`,rJ .� 3� k' •vy, gilh"a Th`&& a '" „4:,,,,:...-,•,), 2'+I t�" �Sf ,°` ` .i. at., rf t I�I _ � Ar<kt2.w� a . i Thj't '43G :el..- y` '4.641.1 �I J. ..e fr3>,- y •P3*�-g :+R •a' r- �,., r.-aai.-!'- 1• 't' poly- t �' �n' T Fuel depot perimeter security-Many large oil companies including CHAWGUARD""can t •e used to prevent this that fromhad occurring. This is a Chevron 011 are using'CI to secure valuable"Tank post Gull War photo showing well a burning no perimeter form Farms"from attack. of barrier. 5 OCT 5 ' 93 16: 06 3033302919 PAGE • 006 9;1249 OCT-05-93 TUE 16 :06 'LEY ASSOCIATES 307 X02919 P. 07 02830/DBP BuyLine 8145 INSTALLATIONS WORLDWIDE D&B Products-Wire Division and our construction partner-Crowley Company Inc. have the knowhow and experience to design and build high security fence systems using "CHAINGUARDTM" Maximum Security Fencing anywhere in the world. Let us design and build your perimeter security system We specialize in helping our customers design & build cost efficient, high security enclosures. We can also provide a full line of electronic sensors and electric gate operators to reduce the labor cost in maintaining your secure area. D&B PRODUCTS -Wire Division ..== Crowley Company Inc. "Partners in Domestic and International Perimeter Security Design and Installation" 0CT 5 ' 93 16: 07 3033302919 PAGE . 007 91219 OCT-05-93 TILE 16 :07 "LEY ASSOCIATES 303-302919 P. 08 ChainGuard'T" Maximum Security Fencing Standard ChalnGuard- Maximum Security Fencing: -� Cunfanrs to Qyin Unk Fence Mxrcnlaclurrn Institute syaifitltkxw-2:13(QJCTrL •� "`V ' 1.1 BASE METAL:The twse metal d the fabric shall withstand the tonguing breaking loads:No.6 ga.-2,t70 . •,, Its.No.9 ga•1290 lbs.,No. II ga-850 Its,All references rms oars nc s made to wire dlacr to core encoder � only,Ad orating shall be in addition to the specified core. ^? ^ 1.2 WIRE DIAMETER:The wire diameter shall have a tolerance d plus or mime 005 inches. M . 1.3 OOIAWM"COATING:The wire shall be aluminum coaled by the hot-clip process before weaving. The weight of aluminum coating for 6 ga.and 9 ga.shall not be less than.4 os,per square root and `� a. for II ga.not less than.35 ox.per square foot of actual surface covered. 1.4 DuuaBono"PVC COATINCF Class 1 Extruded PVC wire shall have been coated with either zinc or - aluminum by the hot-dip or electrolytic process prior to being mated with PVC The thickness of PVC •ti - �� • coaling shall be.020 inches plus or minus.005 inches.Vinyl shall not be cut.scraped,or torn In any way. Mesh Opening: 1,5 HF3Clrf OF FAIIRIC The bogs shall be the email dknnuiotl Inxn the ends o1 the knuckle.Fabrics Colt Wire Dia:9ga(.148 in.) O shall be C Cn in and untinuotai piece in standard heights up to and irdudrtf 20 S.The tolerancekr 1.6 ?boll he plus or mesh s 1/2s'ze shah 1.6 MESH Sla•:�The size shall be(klpn'WnOd b1'ntatsudng the shortest distends Ixiwcat wires looting the pwlid SAS of One mesh.The tolerance of the nSi operdstgs shall be plus or minus 3/32 inch. 1.7 SELVAGE Knuddld ChalnGuard'"Maximum Security Fencing meets or exceeds Fed.spec•BR-F-191/IC and ASTM-A491430. LAE.PER FP Burst Strength: OF HEIGHT A—3B`repaing.120 In diameter(II ga)steel core wire,aluminum coaled 39,809' B— 3/8-waling.080 M diarrder(14 go)ginned sled core wire,•120 in Jonter ed 17,690' nuded vinyl finish size. C— 3/W opening TM in d'tantt t(12 girl gdv'anuod sled core wire,.120 in d'mnktr 4�T bonded vinyl finish sine. D—3/8'tippling.148 in di,vnser(9 get)star on.wire aluminum coated. 60,500' E— I/4'opening.148 in dimmer(9 ga)steel core wire,aluminum coated. 81,750' Mesh Opening 3/8 in. Core Wire Da: I4 ga. (.082 in.) F— I"'>pn�B.192 in diameterstttr core wi,e,aluminum males 44,580* Coating: Eldjuded PVC WMPARC30N: RrOor 2"tuzh.120 in diameter wire III ga)has a burg Amp of 9900' Its.per It Fynslpd Site It ga ct2o't 'NI figures baud on I10AC0 P9 wire Itroik WIRE TYPE MESH OPENING DunALute or DURAGALV'"Coating 1/4" 3/8" 1/2" 5/8" 1" 2" GAUGE DECIMAL EQUIVALENT 6 .192" • rl • 9 .146" II .120" To simplify and expedite the specification of our mesh,use our EAS)5PEC"system Absolute Maximum Security. CHANYGUARD"SPEC 1409A Medium Security: CHAINCLIARD"SPEC 1411A Minimum Security: CHAINGUARD"SPEC 3809A Opening:5/8 in. Simply pick the level of secunly needed,and write in the CHAINGUARD'spec! a Wire e (D82 in.) xtruded PVC Current Installations: Finished She: 11 ge.(.120 in.) aa LOUISIANA BOYS TRAINING INSTITUTE,Baton Rouge,LA/JEFFERSON DAVIS JAIL Prentice,MO/BUCKS COUNTY PRISON,Bucks County,PA/WORCESTER COUNTY 4 ^ 41 •` JAIL,Snow Hill,MD/WEST JEFFERSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,West Jefferson, AL/POLISH EMBASSY,Washington,D.C./BALTIMORE WASHINGTON EXPRESSWAY, le- z 4 \ Baltimore,MD/EPA-JEROME PARK RESERVOIR,Bronx,NY/CENTRAL ALABAMA Ili PRISON,St.Clair Springs,AL/ILLINOIS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER,Harrisburg, 4 • 4 z 4 • IL/COLUMBIA HOSPITAL,Washington,D.C./OSSINING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Ossining,NY/CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER,Nashville,TN/SOUTHEASTERN SECURE *sit 4 - 4 ' 4 TREATMENT UNIT,Embreeville,State Hospital,Contsvlile,PA For more Information about ChainGuard'"maximum security ` k fencing or other specialty fencing caU (410)822-5511 or write: �� D8 B Products-Wire Division • Dept S • P.O.Box 1584 Easton,Maryland 21601 • Fax: (410822-8086 Mesh Opencg 1/4 in. Crowley Company Inc. • 10630 Nassau Street S.E. Care wue Dia: 14 ga.(.082 in) Minneapolis,MN 55434 • Fate (612)784-6043 Coating: Extruded PVC Telephone; (612)784.1120 Fnished Sae 11 ga.(120 m.) . - rntad in Usk OCT 5 ' 93 16 : 07 3033302919 PAGE . 008 9a1249 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION , STATE OF COLORADO ss COUNTY OF WELD JdIIMO I, KEITH HANSEN, of said County of Weld, being duly sworn,say that I am publisher of 7rr Etor S.999, WINDSOR BEACON• ibil P to a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in said tithe wPrMw County and State, published in the town of WINDSOR, .r in said County and State; and that the notice, of which the annexed is a true copy, has been published in said ANT: TSAI&il �.I Tir 1. weekly for_ _successive weeks, that the notice was published in the regular and entire issue of every The& oescpi number of the paper during the period and time of d adia publication, and in the newspaper proper and not in a.Lwowsupplement, and that the first publication of said notice 1„ , INTENEM et was in said paper bearing the date of the i (RAnn day of , A.D., 199-3 and toWWp�aaM� a7 the last publication ante of the la and mad nns" day of A.D., 19_ and Rost that the said WINDSOR BEACON has been published sa l.24 ram aama continuously and uninterruptedly for the period of 5 xw consecutive weeks, in said County and State, prior to the . .th w.t( date of first publication of said notice, and the same is a :1 us Floor newspaper within the meaning of an Act to regulate m printing of legal notices an advertisements, approved 7.'1".. nWww M7 May 18, 1931, and all prior cts ar as in force. / 0. 31 E""a c ` P LISHER ,tea fr Subscri and sworn to before me this j f�t day i Or rikof r 19 -3 M.17N AAprom aOahe Mal. NOTARY PUBLIC • My commission expires �+ 67 (1 eP . PiMrOr► _.. C 3tC IVE OC1 O 5 1993 \\ Weld County Planning 61191249 t / .,_ 11 Coil 9i5 /o c r Yr- 7Vel-e--- Zi:e ,! --r---G96- P � fr _ ,...) ___.;:_Cle--, --117_ rar--4%9C d_____AZzarc____.) Le - _.. � / ail7/71(---e- <_--- -7- 7---c: oho LLC _ - G di t -. ?i�/t X. c , P,t, ,oee - 901249- _ _ .. . G�-^dsee-"��1.c�J .93243 ( (1 (e) s el --I-A-4, Zo ji-e--7/-ces2-/S--el-- 71e- G _ - 1 i - ic5)-1---2 ta1621,-eitd-i- . _ a ® ��-C/ _ RUC - - 9:0-Ce.°C- fir._ oyter 949 iff 3111-1-C, _:- i 74i d9scei nJ /1 2_ d 07' .--- _ 9'0x,249 1 f ( ( Vial) COU1I T Y 11/ et' - - 1993 .7.2 2? .'. 1 'D- 05 1, �.•. _ TO T1'r= 22U—4&--kj-d—r1/4-_ &./t-e --r6t4,l-r-s- set-I c fro,:ari-2 tf.e_e_e -,etet_e_ S 9 swC ,C / / / c /f7 iefr_ - _ ---Xit—e----erfec- 1.04-0 cgcLiAse_ -.. -- xi_2__d_gQp_r_cu L.7:G ,te_e i z t a, 4,0azaris s4�� " - (i 6g yue - - 2ee-ci _ - Gam' G2_4_z_aL., _ / ' 1 F :P4) .6oce-. , 92 99 4 !D COU; TY lV�. i 9 ,3: 00, - - _Wiz._ _ Q - _� � . GeiL� r cry O �ti ! ar�- _. e. '-e s rye c c .24-ern-j-jr-/---a--n—,./ at-de-6c> trce--e___, W1-4; try se-ce. - ----------- // -� -=,dam/ /- . catkit.a-i-kL 51 __° -. • - I LD2-O.7U ` - �Qh-*laic , ._ 1 ` a ,. ukolontie ,, Vat t y x-, . Nta. C�U,. ; fuLty4Am athlikajamd, ru /-fit); aikol, 0 I(-ll-L "in, k Leal. &I.O, G zc- , 0 am ithei-at . 1e- t c ocvc O � lb Aiwa 8-w-o ;, ,t -c_ cl2�1C�"�c�nu % -Lep Imo .,tue, fob /Kit Aa,ue W o-6-L,em ct Dtaflut e)3-4(boa . ..fie e- . J,. loth . e, , ,mooioAst 1aai vn1a2 Jcn nc 6W(-, .,ux- ,otangtc? ./fkz t a u oL ? 8tca.0 ae-, 4 to-G a to ,L i a a 4 Jh At Jpuia cue coca Lk • oi-t'`fc ' ,6,0- , Otti , ,ILIY-A, (ftt- damp , Oil ibL boa SAL Lt a (wLQ Z , OW- LiL)nt , ainct c 9- C 2' ¢ ° a , it.b Oftrubtod ei m , Exhi ii f ,04 , ,DoCc a12 l! II .10 Codza. .yta ,fib e aottL , ct Jqu • u It) 7/ ahav Z iD otzl Go-e- o-es aufsdithyb anti 4anyrilita, 01 .tom ?&14w/vo Add /matt ik d t ierbac Lim:Lilly e 1-twe 0 1521 WCf. 24 Long ntmt , Cu ?05a4 92,1249 r The public is invited to attend an informational meeting, sponsored by Greeley/Weld County Economic Development (E .D.A.P. ) , on Monday, April 26 , 1993 at 7 : 00 p.m. at the Budget Host Motel in Del Camino . The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the establishment of a correctional facility in an unincorporated area of southwestern Weld County. �=Tc1 9Z1249 WELCOME The Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action Partnership has been asked to sponsor tonights neighborhood meeting between The Villa and landowners, businesspeople and residents of the Del Camino and immediate surrounding areas. EDAP respectfully asks people not living, conducting business or owning land in the immediate area to wait and ask their questions after the formal meeting. At 7:00 p.m. there will be a 30-minute presentation by the Villa explaining the proposed pre-parole release facility. At 7:30 p.m. the facilitator for the evening will invite the people who have signed the "QUESTION SIGN-UP SHEET," in the order they have signed up,to ask their questions. At 8:30 p.m. the meeting will be brought to an end and those who still have questions may stay and informally ask their questions of the representatives of The Villa. The Public Hearing on the proposed zoning change by Weld County will be held separately in the future. For more information on the Public Hearing, please call Weld County at 356-4000. Because the Weld County Commissioners will be hearing testimony and will be acting on the proposed zoning change, they will not be at tonights meeting. There will be a Weld County Representative to answer Weld County Government questions. Because of the time constraints, and because EDAP wants to allow all people who live, own property or conduct business in the area a chance to ask questions, there will not be an open forum at tonights meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. 901249 L)0 u b 4 O i ^ '71?-`2 a, ..'O �,t b0 Jorrecoons r. O.O a a O'w w w„ft, FU.“Lo a�.' • • o o'-4 aidAiilUII y 'ro uofficial will c o Di .C > •Utti w 1 ra w v / help fight o . . • b.0 Z2c E2 n'e' o ' 4w 3- cola' d o 5a o y ,y 3 a ' pre-parole E 04My w�"-r" y 7^NOO nN 4- ei*. . • • ▪� .4tHI#U1ilDhik '13 2 CO facility 1 By GABRIELLE JOHNSTON • T 6 T d E A. w d y ,:- 0 6• ,g o - _t I Times-Call Staff Writer m c o o DEL CAMINO — A former CP1 $.V ow> ; o 1 b ' i state corrections official has • m d c o b •m VI y .4.1 Z o'a-21.-, stepped into the ring to help Del y 60 o , y g B a cs ti , Camino residents fight a pro- al v E T v o 0 c o v co 2 a Camino re-parole facility in Del d •: 3 o Its) d", •c, b d.ty o o "We don't need any more profi- teering u ou ° 'm d � y > private types," said c said he was 5 d d -._„. .4-.... y m w° d i° c,>;14 o b r m [ appointed by Gov.er Lauen, oRoy Romer to o s • u b m v °6 c c ' i° 2 ^ o [ c °� serve on the Colorado Criminal go- 4, O ,,,-...... 4-. OO d ....t,2:8 d m as, 0 r[ Justice Commission. Lauen also • c,N g we cd d u U c c 3 a,5 o v O, said he is a member of Boulder 0.9 a O2 ,..E-i d u 3 - o EC 6 N Z, County's Jail Crowding Task Force and a criminology profes- m .o. o y b y N..r3.1 > c g •G.m o I sor at the University of Colorado. aw o d `E c o..r d g o:E . W a He also was the state director the z E 3 Fc 3 d y E- ['o dcess. o Colorado Community Corrections Or ail-o«o o c c y w m oc z for eight years, Lauen said. W o "_o I Y a�i 'Bail)B m a' r, �' A state corrections representa- 2 ` m •0 d co c a o o o ;"., N j tive said Lauen is now associated p t o O.-S a c to c too S 3 2 y with Citizens for Correctional Re u.i3 fa ro, u,� o ° gad cc al r, m 3 I a d bow m"^>d ° c,d «° form. a Boulder resident, said w a c'h E E [Do ° c [vi b c o u he would lead the charge to de- ¢N W S o c o O o c T A o&,o c S :14)u°' , feat the proposal and expressed cars W,°•E so c, g m v r._) o g lap. C confidence that it could be done. Q° Wdo�y domdc = dch9odo "All you have to do is make d o o ›,- ' a d 00 8 h a�°�° enough noise," Lauen said. m a) o m = 3 ti�7 4)-O Some area residents have cited COP mat).+U•O co F4 w ti tri O- .+ V (L Qa escape rates, a decrease in prop- , erty values and concern over the type of people the facility would attract as reasons to oppose the facility. The 300-bed privately owned fa- cility would house inmates for 90 days while they received inten- sive educational training and ' counseling. While the developers _ of the jail, The Villa at Greeley, have not yet designated a specific site, they have narrowed the pos- sibilities to the Del Camino area. Greeley, Evans and Windsor have rejected the same proposal. Lauen said the state does not need another parole facility, as the state already has 23 residen- tial and 15 non-residential cor- rectional programs. These pro- grams, which include the Long- mont Community Treatment Cen- ter, are adequate, Lauen said. Furthermore, there is no rea- son the state should sign a con- tract with The Villa when funding already is provided to the Colo- rado Department of Corrections ly I to implement similar programs, he said. 3"'Li??a9 ._ In addition. some private fa- ._... . .••.•••e k __ _ _._.... �._-.. Del Camincdlscre . ancy . . • .i Fae • ili 77� h: • as residents now say,developers at the Villa at the facility would house "primarily" property and tyWould House Greeley are being less than honest about the facil- drug offenders . "When you shake it down about 7 percent of the violent offenders ,t But Villa admmtstratoi John Coppom said he has populations al our facility will be serving time for a i been truthful from the beginning t ' " violent crime, and these people will have been elas- "We are committed td furnishing the complete sifted down to cuoinnnn risk," Coppom said. "It is TBi GABRIELLE Writer truth on an Issue,".Coppoin said.• a misstatement to say that this facility,as a theme, Times-Call Stag Writer ., Y, PP would'handle violent offenders ' DEL CAMINO—Residents claim developers of the Residents„said developers originally told them Tom Wafers attorney for the legal services with pre-parole facility proposed for Del Camino have that only property crime and drug offenders would the Colorado Department of Corrections, said that lied about plans for the prison, failing to tell rest- be housed in the facility?.. , t.' state would determine who is housed at the facility, dents violent offenders could be housed there. "The only persons who;will be placed in the tacit- -. • Area residents have opposed the 300-bed facility . ity will be minimum risk.offenders,"Coppom said. in cooperation with the Villa. from the beginning, and resistance is building fast Pe explaiired;that he,originally told residents that An offender who is assigned to .........,,,... - - this facility is going to be an indi- vidual who is within a certain pe- —___ riod of their parole date," Waters said. "A person who has been pa- roled after serving a sentence for a violent crime has certainly, in• the eyes of the parole board,been seen as ready for integration into the community," Waters said. "The idea that prisoners are going to be escaping willy-nilly from a secured facility is not a totally reasonable fear. Obvi ously,things can and do-go wrong with secured facilities. Escapes do happen." Waters said the state takes sev--- eral precautions to ensure the '— - safety of surrounding communi- • ties,however. Residents also said they feel Coppom was dishonest about the amount of time inmates would serve at the facility. Originally, residents understood that inmates would serve 90 days, but later learned that they could serve as many as 180 days. Coppom said he always told residents that inmates would serve all"average"of 90 days. i. Del Camino area residents now are circulating petitions opposing the,facility, which they plan to:.-- present to the Weld County Plan-• ping Commission. In addition, Concerned Citizens of Del Camr no, a group of residents, is work I. ' 'fog on other ways to demonstrate I ioppositibnto the prison. I C 1 tq Cary. MI A: AN 13 OF Dad ii d @ a • 1 Ail ovr- • _ 1 f 5 F r m it vo x m' _ ..dd ' �^'fgp Fad' 3 �g2ri' " m F ° 7� e' $el,Gw r�y``�o lq 8115 Gl ' §is Diw ErQm tr. , . 5 rg �qw•m �'w CC'' eAp o ILDR.zgr C Ft 61 g4 kiBa � 1 #` w �� LI S�fiO x �.S trau 2.4 4�{W .dg Z ryA ' V R ga Al RM .g� gli4�5 r w R2 o it it gi ��''. 3E aSDM C °r}�^ a N g a Q gatk ail ° wumAgg 7S1 ELEIV'9 it-atgO 4 �10-10`P A'm N�'C.m (� t!fliI}iitflItJ1'U'U a apaRt Smk't^ _ r wd w �7g hnih � o„ r 114)1- a Pte 14) Rh 1" ag Kg e 0.i! q '] i .-i �'gg' mw $ flVtinTig,"iiisztat.'0W g.h ad2 W. q�p ¢, W r4 O44N; glilr ggt �i "Al j:,rd KK (�n `a a w c F. P o COI a aC 5m V g a R a.- `�•4 a \.M 2. ggge y 4 8 a s P 9x1.249 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 850 MWMEMINMWWWQMINE 1420 2nd Street {7 ��12 Greeley.Colorado 80632-0850 (303)353-1232 August 17, 1993 AUG 20 1993 IM-IRCX) 025-3 (110) Del Camino Interchange Weldr^nntyPlannin9 Subaccount 91033 Mr. Art Uhrich Nelson Engineers 822 7th Street, Suite 520 Greeley, Colorado 80631 • Dear Mr. Uhrich: Thank you for contacting the Region 4 office of the Colorado Department of Transpor- tation regarding future plans for reconstruction of the Interstate 25/State Highway 119 interchange at Del Camino. It is our understanding that Weld County has re- quested a metes and bounds description of the easterly realignment of the frontage road in relation to your client' s property northeast of I-25 and Weld County Road 24. We are currently in the process of designing an interchange which will accommodate the eventual widening of I-25 to six lanes. In about one month, we expect to have a preliminary design establishing the location of the future frontage road intersection on County Road 24 as well as the on/off ramp terminal. Until the design is determined, we can not provide a precise location for the new frontage road intersection along County Road 24 . For your information, reconstruction of the interchange is currently scheduled for the Fall of 1995. An alignment for the relocation of the frontage road east of I-25 had been provided to developers a number of years ago prior to the current planning for widening I-25 to six lanes. It may be necessary to adjust the previously determined location and alignment to allow for the six-lane concept . Any adjustment of the previous frontage road concept will require coordination with the development on both sides of County Road 24 to ensure a single location for the ultimate frontage road intersection. Please contact Mr. Dave Forsyth at 757-9392 in our Denver design squad for further information on the status of interchange plans. Very truly yours, L David D. Davis Region Preconstruction Engineer DDD (WRJ) cm Weld County Planning Dept . T. Jones D. Forsyth File via Elmquist 9:;1249 May 10, 1993 Weld County Planning & Zoning Mr . Chuck Cunliffe Administrative Building Planning Department 1400 No. 17th Ave. Greeley, Colo. , 80631 Mr. Cunliffe: After a week, the feathers have cleared from the meeting at DelCamino in reference to the "Villa" Minimum Prison Facility to be located on road 24 & I-25. After reading all the literature that was given at the meeting I am still against any zoning that would allow this facility to be located in the Del Camino area. I feel that it would ruin what rural settings we have left. I can't imagine a prison across the field from "Barbour Ponds" . .a state park. . 1 can't image a prison a couple of miles from DelCamino mobile home park. . . I can' t imagine the poor farmer who has to live across the street from the 10' fences with bobbed wire and dogs patrol . This is not a positive move for our area. We something something good for our community. We will never get anything from this facility (but trouble) as it is a private partnership. We loose more money on our houses worth, and "The Villa" makes millions. Please do not change the zoning so this prison facility can move in. It needs to be farther East were there are NO people. . . Cathy Diesing 9054 I-25 Frontage Road East Longmont, Colorado 80504 NAY 1 4 1993 .PIvinillr 65- • 9 ,1249 Hello