'Veto power' for re-entry center

COEUR d’ALENE — Before they can rule on a proposed—and controversial—correctional re-entry center, Kootenai County commissioners want some legal guidance of their own.

In the form of a new county ordinance.

Commissioners on Thursday directed staff to work with the county’s planning and zoning commission to draft code amendments that would provide a guideline of conditions under which the 130-bed community re-entry center would be allowed.

“Currently, there is no county ordinance that addresses this type of facility,” said Commissioner Leslie Duncan.

While the Department of Correction has not firmly said it will locate a re-entry center in Kootenai County, commissioners said they want to be ready if and when a formal request arrives.

That will require adoption of a new ordinance explaining how the facility would have to be permitted. The new ordinance, or code amendment, would list requirements necessary for approval of a conditional use permit.

“We need to be able to clearly identify under what conditions such a facility would be allowed,” said Commissioner Chris Fillios.

Opposition to the proposed facility in Kootenai County has been strong and widespread since the Idaho Legislature set aside $12.2 million for its construction last session. The correction department has since been searching for a site exclusively in Kootenai County.

Hayden resident Doug Okuniewicz, an outspoken opponent of the center, requested Thursday’s meeting with commissioners. Following the meeting he said he supports the action taken by the board.

“A conditional use permit process is the way to go,” he said. “You can be as restrictive as you want to be. They (DOC) will have to satisfy all the conditions.”

Okuniewicz, who is running for the Idaho Legislature, House Seat 2B, said the conditional use permit approach is an effective way to restrict the facility from coming to Kootenai County.

“It’s a nuanced way to obtain that,” he said.

County civil attorney Pat Braden told commissioners the conditional use permit procedure would effectively “give commissioners veto power” over the center as it would with any other applicant who didn’t satisfy all conditions of a conditional use permit.

While Duncan said the board will remain open-minded to the proposal, she acknowledged deep public distrust in the proposal and its applicant.

“The bottom line is the community does not trust the Department of Correction,” she said. “But I can’t allow myself to be swayed by public opinion. I have to follow the fact of law.”

Commissioner Bill Brooks was not guarded about his opposition.

“I’ve heard from 90-95 percent of the public that they don’t want it,” he said.

“The director of the DOC said, ‘We won’t go where we’re not wanted,’ Brooks added. “As commissioners, our first duty it to protect the public and putting one of these (centers) in the county puts the public at risk.”

Commissioners directed community development director David Callahan to work with the planning and zoning commission on conditional use permit language that would be required for approval of the re-entry center.

“We’d like them to define a set of parameters that would allow for accommodation of a facility like this,” Fillios said. “We haven’t accounted for this use.”