Friends of Virgin, Inc.
P.O. Box 790005
Virgin, Utah 84779-0005
www.friendsofvirgin.com
If you wish to be removed from our email list please send a message to friends@friendsofvirgin.com.
Our Purpose:
To promote the continued health, safety, security, beauty, and viability of the town of Virgin, Utah, through the combined efforts and talents of the individuals and entities herein known as the Friends of Virgin.  Though the Friends of Virgin differ dramatically in viewpoint and political affiliation, they unite here to assist in informing and educating local residents and decision-makers; promoting openness in the town government and free access to its records; and encouraging public input as well as its serious consideration by officials.
Board of Directors:
Lee Ballard, president
Adele Pincock, secretary
Sandra Grow, treasurer
Linda Collet, director
DRD Properties South, director
Jan Walker, director
OPINION  
Youth Treatment Facilities  	
	We have decided to place the following discussion of residential treatment centers (RTCs) and congregate living facilities under our ‘OPINION’ heading to allow us some leeway in comment and to save the space required in referring to sources.  The facts provided, however, are based on myriad notes, interviews, documents, articles, and public records, with which we will gladly provide you in some form if you have a specific question.  Most of these sources have already been provided to the RTC Committee, the Town Clerk, and/ or planners and councilmembers.	
	There has been some debate over the last eighteen months as to whether private commercial facilities for troubled youth should be allowed to locate in the town of Virgin.  Representatives of and  investors in these profitable enterprises have attempted to allay the concerns of many residents (who express worry about internal and external safety, aesthetics, infrastructure costs, and more) in meetings, in pamphlets, and even in the official Virgin Town newsletter.  	A new ordinance addressing the regulation of congregate living facilities in Virgin will be voted on by our officials in the very near future, and a public hearing will precede the final decision.  Thus, we are going to put all other concerns aside for the May issue of our newsletter, and devote maximum space to providing you with relevant information.  
 
What have we learned about RTCs?                                    	Before answering this fully, we would like to make it clear that we are not suggesting there couldn't be effective, well-intentioned, properly run, and safe RTCs in existence. Unfortunately for all concerned (and especially for the children) we find that the cards are stacked against them. 
	The initial reaction of many residents to the idea of housing "troubled teens" in our quiet little town seemed to be rooted in a fear of the teens themselves.  However, after only a  brief investigation into these private facilities, licensed by the state as Residential Treatment Centers, we suddenly found ourselves on another side of the problem entirely.  Eighteen months of research have validated for us concern for the welfare of "consumers" in these homes which overshadows worries about the acts of escaping children.  We have heard, sometimes through the press but more often through previous employees, parents, government offices, police, or via official requests for public records, of numerous practices, ranging from the imprudent to the criminal, performed in these private youth homes and similar programs while under the supervision of state agencies.  Privacy laws designed to protect the futures of youth in the centers can exacerbate the situation, making it possible for questionable practices to continue without interference from concerned citizens who might otherwise be a natural resource to help regulate the industry.    
	Our research shows that the state does not sufficiently investigate applicants for permits to treat children in these facilities. For instance, the previous manager of a Virgin RTC (who left the facility after an incident which spurred a sheriff’s investigation) had not cleared the “required” BCI background check, even well after the home began to operate.  Also, certain members of the management of another RTC granted a permit in Virgin had not passed background checks when we last queried the Office of Licensing.  Are we to close up already troubled children with adults who may, for all we know, have criminal records? 
	We have learned that the licensing regulations for these centers are minimal in Utah. It seems almost anyone with $200 (plus $1.50 per resident) can acquire a license to run an RTC in Utah. No education is necessary, no experience required. This makes it a very attractive enterprise for those looking to make themselves wealthy.  
	A 1997 investigation by the Auditor General’s office found that, among other problems, the Office of Licensing does not adequately enforce Utah rules regulating youth treatment programs.  Typically, if a facility was found to be in violation of regulations the management was given warning and sometimes months (or no deadline at all) to correct the problems, even when the violations were serious. Often no follow-up inspection was made to verify corrective action. We don't feel facilities housing vulnerable youth should be allowed to operate at all when, for instance, their treatment policies are found to be illegal. 
	Ironically, we understand no follow-up to this five-year-old audit has been made to check for corrective action in the Office of Licensing.  The order for such a follow-up must come from the legislature.  Our review of recent public records suggests problems revealed by the audit still exist; we have received confirmation of this directly from the Office of Licensing.  Lack of legislated funding spells inadequate manpower to regulate the large number of private facilities in the state.                                   
	Many residents have expressed concern about proper schooling for kids in RTCs, so we checked on it with the Office of Licensing. We were temporarily reassured to learn that the state requires RTCs to have accredited educational programs. At least, we said to ourselves, these kids aren’t being set back in their education by placement in the centers.  However, this requirement has been ignored with impunity by applicants to Virgin (who last fall allowed even their application for accreditation to expire), as well as by the state Licensing Office.  Calls to the Office of Licensing and Washington County School District yielded the information that, although RTCs must inform the Board about their educational plan, there is no requirement that the school district approve the plan.       	
	Though public statistics do not reflect them, we have learned of numerous incidents at many local facilities, some of which suggest poor supervision, incompetency of staff, or violence of students. Most incidents go unreported; even permittees in Virgin Town admit their policy is to deal with these problems privately. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the danger such facilities may present to townspeople, property, staff and students.                                    
	We are reluctant to trust in the good intentions of all applicants, as we have learned that RTCs are almost unbelievably profitable.  So, you might say, that must be why our small towns are allowing them to come in.  However, because of our tax laws, the town or other entity which provides (possibly expensive) infrastructure for an RTC may discover it will receive no significant tax benefit whatsoever.        	Applicants for RTC permits often sell their proposals to cities and towns by promising a new source of jobs for locals.  We have looked into this some, and discovered that an RTC will, in fact, employ people from the community.  However, we find low-pay, high-turnover jobs to be the norm.  You may remember that, in December last year, teachers from a local RTC staged a protest against the home’s employment policies.  Teachers expressed concern for the quality of education provided by the facility, citing an undue emphasis on profits by management, along with high turnover and low wages for the faculty.  We understand that, at one meeting of the RTC committee some weeks ago, the manager of a Virgin treatment center admitted the average length of stay for employees at his facility to be only 90 days.  Assuming this to be true, a small town like Virgin will have garnered its employment benefit from the facility in a very short time.   	It looks as though our state and local codes may be inadequate to protect taxpayers and consumers from potential abuse of the system by these private treatment centers; why have we had no reform?  A clue to the answer may lie in a bit of information we, ironically, found across the continent in the New York Times last week (see “Parents, Shopping for Discipline, Turn to Tough Schools Abroad”, May 9th).  Reporter Tim Wiener points out that the main marketing arm of the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, whose flagship program is Cross Creek Manor in La Verkin, provided over $215,000 in campaign funds for the 2002 election, making it the single largest corporate contributor in Utah.  

The Road to Approval
	Last summer, after a petition was presented to our officials here in Virgin asking they disallow a 48-youth RTC to build on Highway 9, there was much talk about zoning.  We were given some confusing messages by members of our local government.  When we asked why we should consider such an unpopular use in our commercial zone, though it is listed as neither permitted nor conditional in our ordinance, we were told that, since they are not listed, we must allow them.  We were told that in order to regulate or prohibit RTCs we must write a new ordinance to address them, and that this would not affect any who have already applied.  We were told, in a dizzying turnaround, that RTCs cannot be zoned out because they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.  We were told that we must allow RTCs in our town to comply with federal Fair Housing regulations, and that denial of a permit would expose the town to expensive litigation.  
	The truth about some of these confusing messages became clear in September last year, when Russ Gallian, acting Town Attorney, advised officials on the record that the decision to grant or deny permits to an applicant for an RTC, which is not a listed use in our zoning ordinance, is a judgment call.  The Board’s action would be protected by immunity laws if they believed it to be in harmony with the intent of the Town’s ordinance and master plan.  After our planning and town boards recommended and approved permits to Liahona Academy, some members assured the public they would vote to approve no more RTCs in the near future.  One commissioner even told the public he would allow no applicant to be placed on the agenda until we have a new ordinance in place.  Later last fall, the council passed a “pending ordinance resolution” to warn new applicants they would be required to comply with the terms of an as-yet unwritten ordinance.  Stand-in Town Attorney Russ Gallian suggested we try to have the ordinance ready within six months.                                         
	The Planning Commission asked for volunteers to form a committee to investigate the issue and make recommendations for an ordinance.  Nine residents signed up and all were placed on the new RTC Committee, along with two consultants: Judy Randall (Washington County Sheriff) and Stan Allan (manager of Falcon Ridge Ranch).  The committee met a number of times this winter; assignments were given and a great deal of information was gathered.  The relevant code was studied, the experiences of other towns were researched, ordinances regulating RTCs for other entities were examined, and various experts interviewed.  In December and again in January the committee made a report of its findings to the planners and in February presented an ordinance along with a printout of relevant Utah Code.  	
	Meanwhile, a very enlightening presentation was made at our Town Hall by representatives of the Utah League of Cities and Towns. Virgin is a member of the ULCT, whose job it is to provide practical advice and training on planning and zoning to Utah’s cities, towns, and elected and appointed officials.  At this meeting some members of the committee got to make contact with the League’s Professional Planner, Meg Ryan, who was later indispensable in suggesting revisions to various drafts of the committee’s ordinance.  The speakers brimmed with information about the conditional use permit, or CUP.  We learned that a conditional use must actually appear in our zoning ordinance in order for it to be considered, and that our list of uses should be relatively specific, as it is easier to amend a narrow ordinance to allow a beneficial use we hadn’t anticipated (it can even be done in a single month if all agree) than it is to remove a noxious use which manages to slip through the cracks of a vague or overly inclusive one.  We also learned that some towns in Utah were spurred to request the ULCT’s help in drawing up a zoning ordinance when approached by applicants for ... youth treatment centers.  Without the protection of a zoning ordinance a town has little grounds to deny a permit.  The adoption of restrictive zoning does not allow a town to remove an existing facility, but it can stop similar new businesses  from moving in.
	Above events made it clear that no change need be made at all in our zoning descriptions to simply disallow RTCs; the only way a permit can be granted according to current Virgin zoning is for our officials to make a judgment under item #12 of the commercial zone description, "other uses similar to the above recommended by the Virgin Town Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the Town Board to be in harmony with the character and intent of this zone".  Such catchall categories are best left out of municipal ordinances, according to ULCT zoning guru S. Fonnesbeck.  Were this category removed from all zone descriptions, unlisted uses would be prohibited.  
	On the other hand, the Town must be careful not to prohibit on paper those uses which the law does require us to allow.  Once the RTC Committee had gained some understanding of how towns may regulate use, it delved into Utah Code and federal law to find that the ordinance must allow homes for the disabled and the elderly.  The law says there must be provision for live-in facilities for these two groups within residential zones.   We may limit and regulate these homes, but we may not have a blanket policy denying such facilities in our neighborhoods.  There is no such requirement for commercial or other non-residential zones.  The intent of the law is presumably to encourage the ‘mainstreaming’ (or, integration) of the disabled and elderly into normal neighborhood life, rather than the warehousing of vulnerable children and adults for commercial purposes.  
	After conferring with many residents and a majority of the members of our Town Council to get a feel for what they would like the ordinance to do, committee members working on the actual language wrote an ordinance which would exclude private commercial RTCs from all zones in Virgin.  The committee presented the draft to the Planning Commission, but soon learned that Chairman Allen Lee was not ready to zone RTCs out completely, and newly-appointed Commissioner Darwin Hall agreed.  A new version of the ordinance was drawn to allow RTCs in commercial zones on properties a minimum of 1000 feet off the highway, with total consumers limited to a ceiling of 2 percent of the population of Virgin.  At the May planning meeting it was agreed that the Planning Commission would make its recommendation at the June meeting and that the required public hearing would be scheduled in time for the ordinance to be addressed by the Town Council at its June meeting.  
	We understand that a Planning and Zoning work meeting originally scheduled to address road standards on the evening of May 22 was redirected as the meeting opened to explore the RTC ordinance.  The commission (minus Chairman Allen Lee) heard the concerns of a citizen who made some useful suggestions and questioned whether we could actually be more restrictive on such uses as foster care than is the state.  Although it seemed to us this question had long been answered by the RTC Committee's research and the ULCT’s comments on the ordinance, we made a call to a supervisor within the Utah Department of Human Services.  According to our contact there, all programs licensed by the state are required to comply with local zoning limitations, such as proximity to other licensees and caps on the number of residents.  A new version of the ordinance will highlight questioned sections for the Town Attorney’s attention.
	After the changes recommended by the Planning Commission, the ordinance would include the following requirements. Congregate living facilities for the disabled, elderly, or youth (such as in the case of foster care) would be allowed under a conditional use permit in all residential zones. Permits for such homes could be given to house three to five occupants unrelated to the homeowner or manager.  To help maintain a residential atmosphere in our neighborhoods, the ordinance would require a separation of one half mile between congregate living facilities.  Facilities for the disabled must be licensed through the state as such, rather than as RTCs.  
	RTCs would only be allowed in commercial zones, and each facility would be limited to a maximum of 25 consumers.  
Requirements for any RTC would include the following mandatory items:  regular 
continuous compliance with all state code and regulations.
	What’s next?   Well, once the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, a public hearing will be held to gather your input.  Since our Planning and Zoning Commission seems to be somewhat at odds with the Town Council on this issue (informal conversations with councilmembers suggest a majority of them would prefer to zone RTCs out completely), 
and since last summer’s petition against an RTC shows many Virgin residents feel strongly about the question, we hope to see  
a large and vocal attendance.  A recent version of the ordinance is now available at the Town Hall, and a new one, with those sections requiring attorney review marked, will be available very soon.  Questions may be directed at town officials, RTC committee members, or even to FOV, as we have copies of all reports and ordinance versions in our library, as well as two committee members on our board.  See you at the hearing!