Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Midland Detention Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Glenwood Springs to enforce revoked special‑use permit at Midland detention center
Summary
Dozens of speakers at the June 18 council meeting pressed city leaders to enforce the Planning & Zoning Commission’s revocation of the special‑use permit for the Midland Avenue detention facility, citing safety, fire‑risk and alleged lease violations by the private landlord. City attorneys said additional legal review is underway.
Dozens of residents told Glenwood Springs City Council on June 18 they want the city to enforce its own zoning and safety code against a private landlord operating a detention facility at 100 Midland Avenue.
"They have no way of escaping," Judy Haynes said of people detained at the site, urging the council to act to prevent a repeat of previous fire‑related deaths and to prioritize the health and safety of people being held there.
Multiple speakers, including homeowner Ashley Stall, said the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5‑1 to revoke the facility’s special‑use permit after the city’s records and public records requests showed repeated code, occupancy and life‑safety shortcomings. "People were being held there for longer than the special use permit allowed in windowless cells on metal seats in cold air well past the 12‑hour limit," Stall said.
Other commentators pressed the city to pursue enforcement against the private property owner rather than relying on arguments that federal supremacy tied the city’s hands. Julie Bombersbach and others asked why the city would not hold an absentee out‑of‑state landlord accountable for what they called ongoing violations.
Council did not take a formal enforcement vote at the meeting. City attorney Steve Boyd said staff had sought outside legal review and that the outside counsel the city contacted “didn’t want to take a position ... because it’s too dangerous for our firm, but I will say you’re not wrong,” and that he would seek a third opinion and report back. Boyd said additional legal work is required before staff can recommend a definitive enforcement path.
What happened next: Council closed public comment and asked staff to continue seeking legal guidance; no enforcement action was announced at the June 18 meeting. The city’s next regular meeting and staff follow‑up were identified as the likely venue for further updates.
Why it matters: Residents say this is a public‑safety and equity issue — a local permit was revoked after a public process, but community members say the facility continues to operate as a detention center. Council faces a legal and policy choice about whether and how to enforce local code against a private property owner when federal operations or contractors are involved. Those decisions affect the safety of local residents and detainees and the city’s credibility for enforcing its land‑use rules.
The meeting record: Public commentary on this topic began during the public comment period and continued into council discussion; staff committed to additional legal review before returning recommendations to council.
