Moapa Valley Progress Newspaper

Home

News

Sports

Opinion

Upcoming Events

Forecast Radar Cameras

	Moapa TAB Hears Zone Change for Proposed Detention Facility

	by Tim Robison Moapa Valley Progress A lengthy discussion was held regarding a proposed federal detention facility at the Moapa Town Advisory Board Meeting on Thursday, January 10. In conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice, Corrections Corporation of America CCA is proposing to build a federal detention facility in Moapa to service the Las Vegas Federal Court. Brad Wiggins with CCA first explained the difference between a prison and a detention facility. Unlike a prison, which holds convicted criminals for their entire sentence. On the other hand, a detention facility only holds people charged with crimes that are working their way through the federal justice system. People housed at a detention facility will only be there from a few months to a few days. Wiggins then went on to explain that CCA was vying with other companies for the federal contract to build this detention facility. He speculated that some time in June the contract would be awarded. Wiggins explained that the facility would create between 210 and 231 full time jobs to operate the facility; the jobs in question would require a wide variety of skills. The cost of payroll would be $12—$18 million. Cost of building the facility would be $60—$70 million and taxes will be paid on that property. Chris Ferrari, the government affairs consultant hired by CCA stood and introduced team that CCA had brought out to the meeting. Ferrari said that there were experts dealing with entitlements, governmental affairs, environmental, and water experts present to answer the Boards or the communities question. “With this project there are no secrets in this process,” Ferrari said. “We have planners and environmental engineers we want to answer as many questions as the community has and be as open as we can be.” At this point Wiggins introduced Lucy Stewart to explain the request before the Board. Stewart explained that CCA was asking for a public facility zone change waivers to eliminate the landscaping and screening around the building as a safety issue, due to the nature of the facility. Stewart said that CCA is not asking to eliminate landscaping completely but to re-locate the landscaping. Stewart went on to say that CCA agree with all the conditions that the Clark County Staff has proposed if the project is approved. The board then heard comments from various community groups from Clark County staff, Nevada Power, a representative of the Perkins PTA, a representative of the Tribal Council, and many members of the community regarding the pros and cons of building the proposed detention facility in the community. Phil Swain, chairman of the Moapa Paiute Tribal Council, expressed opposition to the project for various reasons. In his lengthy commentary, Swain suggested that the facility be moved next to the Moapa Park and Elementary School so that if the facility is ever closed it could be used by the community for other purposes. Dave Rigdon with Nevada Power stated that Nevada Power neither opposes nor supports the proposed detention center. Rigdon went on to say that despite Nevada Power’s neutrality CCA has been a accommodating and easy to work with. There was a lengthy discussion held on the subject of how a detention facility would affect the psychology of the children in the Moapa community. Board Member Laurellyn Wren gave an impassioned speech dealing with this subject. She expressed fears that children from Moapa already had a stigma against them at school and throughout the community just for living in Moapa. She said that this stigma would only be exacerbated by a detention facility located in the community. Moapa resident Pam Noffsinger rose to address the Board. “I grew up in a prison town,” Noffsinger said. “I didn’t feel any stigma toward me for living in that town. We liked having the prison there. It brought jobs into the community. I did not feel like there was a disadvantage to growing up in such an environment.” Board Chairwoman, Ann Schreiber asked Board Vice Chairman Craig Wolfley to come up with a proposal for the zone change. There was a concern that by passing the requested zone changes the Board was relinquishing their ability to influence the issue beyond the meeting. Stewart assisted the Board in drafting a motion approving the landscape change providing for landscaping equal to or greater than the amount currently being waived. The motion also stated that these changes would be subject to further hearings by members of the Town Advisory Board or by a committee made up of members of the Board and the community. The motion passed with Wren being the only dissenting vote.