A short-term detention center and administrative office operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Midland Center in Glenwood Springs could be forced to close after the city’s planning and zoning commission voted 5-1 on Tuesday to revoke the facility’s special use permit.
The decision comes after public records requests and complaints from residents as well as reporting by news organizations prompted the city to review data showing that ICE held detainees for over 12 hours at the site — located at 100 Midland Ave., Suites 110 and 210 — in violation of the conditions of its permit.
The vote passed with Commissioners Amy Connerton, John Houghton, Connie Geiman, Chair Peter Waller and alternate Kyle Jones in favor of revoking the ICE facility’s permit, and Commissioner Patrick Corcoran opposed. Corcoran was the only planning commissioner who did not provide comments during the hearing explaining his position. The planning commission is made up of local residents appointed by the Glenwood Springs City Council.
“I think it's just important to say that we're going to treat everybody to abide by the rules, and this is no different than any other business — it signals that we are a fair place to do business,” said Jones, filling in for Vice Chair Joy White, who was absent.
Several planning commission members also expressed concern that ICE, the property owner and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), which manages commercial leases for government agencies and oversaw the holding facility’s city permit application in 2003, did not participate in Tuesday’s hearing or respond to the city’s notice of violation issued last month.
“I would like to hear from somebody from the detention center, somebody from the government, and be able to have more evidence that they are caring for our fellow citizens in a humane way,” Geiman said.
The city has seen some cooperation from ICE and the GSA when it comes to recent safety and building-compliance issues. But according to City Attorney Karl Hanlon, who also provides legal counsel to Aspen Public Radio, a recent change in federal policy could potentially allow ICE to continue operating the facility without meeting municipal codes and requirements for building leases.
Each interested party has a week from this past Wednesday, the day the notice of decision was issued, to appeal the city’s permit revocation — and the dispute could end up in the courts.
“Essentially meaning that they can ignore us, and so I don't want anybody's expectations to be that this facility will cease to operate tomorrow,” Hanlon told the planning commission and attendees Tuesday night.
“You have more than enough evidence to revoke [the permit], but what I do not want is for anybody to be confused about the outcome of you taking that action, [although] it's incredibly important for us as a community to make that statement,” he said.
In a memo issued last week, city staff recommended that the commission uphold the permit in the hopes that ICE would agree to provide quarterly reporting on its detentions and come into compliance with the maximum 12-hour hold time, but a majority of the commission determined that there was ample evidence to revoke the permit and little assurance that ICE would comply with city regulations.
Detention violations
Aspen Journalism analyzed about 15 years of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) data — published by the Deportation Data Project at the University of California Berkeley School of Law — and found that ICE detained people beyond the 12-hour limit at the Glenwood Springs facility at least 17 times between Jan. 1, 2011, and March 10. During that time, the total number of recorded detentions was about 1,200.
About half of the over-12-hour detentions occurred in the past year as the Donald Trump administration ramped up immigration enforcement, resulting in a total of 131 recorded ICE detentions at the holding facility in Glenwood Springs as of March 10. Additional 12-hour violations took place under Trump's first presidency (three instances), Joe Biden’s presidency (one) and Barack Obama’s two terms as president (at least four).
Asked by a planning commissioner whether the 12-hour violations represented isolated incidents or a consistent pattern by ICE, Hanlon and Glenwood’s director of Economic and Community Development, Trent L. Hyatt, agreed that it appeared to be both.
“It is a recurring pattern over time, but I think they're also isolated,” Hyatt said. “Just from what, you know, the staff has expressed to me, it's never their intent to hold folks beyond the 12-hour maximum that was identified originally in the [special use permit].”
“We've seen some exceedances in almost every year,” Hanlon added. “I think as a percentage of total, you know, obviously there's a greater number of exceedances in 2025 when there was also a far greater number of people held.”
The longest single detention in the dataset was 24 hours in 2013, with the second-longest one being nearly 22.5 hours on March 5. The data also shows that a higher share of people detained at the ICE holding facility under the second Trump administration have no criminal conviction, compared with the last year of the Biden administration.
This detention data does not include immigration arrests made by Homeland Security Investigations, ICE’s investigative arm under the Department of Homeland Security, which also utilizes the facility, according to city officials.
Smaller ICE holding facilities such as the one in Glenwood Springs are basic, temporary processing spaces not designed for overnight stays and have faced increasing scrutiny nationally and in Colorado over limited oversight and rising detention lengths.
ICE's own standards had long capped holds at 12 hours, but an internal memo issued June 24 extended that limit to 72 hours "absent exceptional circumstances." That exemption had also previously appeared in a 2024 ICE policy document for the 12-hour limit, but is not reflected in either the 2011 or 2025 federal detention standards.
As of the latest available ICE ERO data that runs through March 10, there have not been any recorded cases of people being held at the Glenwood Springs facility for up to 72 hours, but Waller expressed concern about the future implications of ICE’s recent policy change.
“The way the center is set up, even for 12 hours, as people talked about, it's difficult, but holy moly, … 72 hours and not having a bed or all these other types of amenities is very, very, very difficult,” Waller said. “And not being able to talk to the applicant to hear their comments on that is something I struggle with.”
ICE and the GSA did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In a March 12 email providing comment for a prior story, an ICE spokesperson declined to address the alleged permit violation, calling the underlying data "unverified" because it was published by a third party. The Deportation Data Project, which produced the data, states on its website that it gathers datasets released by the government through public records requests and litigation. In the same email, the ICE spokesperson also said that broader concerns about oversight, transparency and conditions at smaller holding facilities are unfounded.
JG Housing Solutions, the Florida-based limited liability company listed as the owner of the portion of the building ICE occupies, also did not respond by deadline.
Potential legal battle
About 160 residents attended the hearing, and the planning commission received a standing ovation after it revoked the permit, but Hanlon said it will be difficult to enforce the decision if ICE, the GSA or the landlord appeals within the seven-day period or simply continues operating the facility without a permit.
If any of the interested parties file an appeal within the weeklong period, the Glenwood Springs City Council will hold a hearing to consider whether to uphold the commission’s decision or issue a new ruling.
“Whatever City Council's decision is could then be appealed into district court under state law,” Hanlon said after Tuesday’s meeting. “If they don't [file an appeal], which I anticipate they probably won't, then really, it becomes a question of how we attempt to enforce the final decision of the planning commission.”
In December, federal authorities repealed a previous regulation that directed the GSA to cooperate with local jurisdictions and meet local codes and requirements for buildings the federal government leases. According to Hanlon, this change, combined with the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and other federal case law, could make it difficult for the city to force the ICE facility to close.
“That creates an environment that it's going to be hard to enforce and we would probably file that enforcement action in federal court,” Hanlon said. “We would be looking for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to enforce the revocation of the [special use permit] and shut down the use because it didn't comply with local zoning.”
Hanlon said the city could also explore taking enforcement action against the owner of the property, which might be an easier route than challenging the government directly in federal court.
“That is probably the area that we might want to push on and see where we could take it,” Hanlon said. “I think it is a serious uphill battle, but if my client tells me to fight the battle, we fight the battle.”
Residents show solidarity
At Tuesday’s hearing, immigrant-rights advocates, former city officials, attorneys, religious leaders and political candidates spoke during public comment and held signs printed with recent dates that people were held at the local ICE holding facility for over 12 hours. No one spoke in favor of upholding the permit.
Local resident Michelle Coombs spoke at the ICE hearing on behalf of her family and others who are at risk of being targeted for their skin color or immigration status.
“I was born and raised in this valley and I'm a contributing member of the community, like so many immigrants who live here,” Coombs said. “I feel a responsibility to stand here today for those who no longer have a voice — for our community members who have been terrorized and people who are trying to just survive day to day.”
Some, including local resident Erin Anderson, held up photographs and told stories of their fellow community members who were detained at the facility before being deported.
“These are our neighbors, these are kids who go to school with your kids,” Anderson said. “Don't give preferential treatment to ICE because you're scared — this has been scary for all of us, but it's safer when we all stand up and do the right thing together.”
Glenwood Springs resident and immigration attorney Claire Noone, whose public records requests and recent legal brief helped inform the permit hearing, said she was heartened by the planning commission’s decision.
“The city now is kind of signaling that they are in the fight with us,” Noone said after the hearing. “So we are happy to extend all of our support, creativity, diligence and, you know, hard work that we've been putting into this to, you know, fight this together.”
Noone and other advocates acknowledged that there’s more work to be done to enforce the planning commission’s decision as well as ensure that city officials are able to enforce critical safety requirements if the ICE facility remains open and people are still being detained there.
Glenwood Springs resident Bob Campbell said he was feeling cautiously optimistic after Tuesday’s decision.
“I was really pleased that the planning commission chose to revoke after the city staff had really sort of indicated that they thought upholding it was the right move,” Campbell said. “But I think by doing it, they've taken the step of making a clear statement that rules are important.”
Campbell also acknowledged that there is no guarantee the city will be able to enforce its decision and shut down the ICE detention facility, especially since ICE did not respond to the original notice of violation or participate in Tuesday’s hearing.
“If ICE continues to do whatever they want by issuing internal memos, and we've seen this nationally — they can go into people's homes without a warrant, these kinds of things — where is the line where laws and government have the ability to step in and say, ‘This is not allowed. You can't do this,’” Campbell said. “So if they're not going to cooperate, then let's just make a clear statement that we believe in the rule of law.”
