[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6518471,"mediaKeyId","5391970-d8bf5528b4eb8f07dcf06876a0e09460","parentId",5391970,"title","Public commenters press county on expense reimbursement and receipt rules","audioSeconds",307,"startMs",2715609,"endMs",3022960,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5391970-d8bf5528b4eb8f07dcf06876a0e09460&start=2715&end=3022","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5391970-d8bf5528b4eb8f07dcf06876a0e09460/thumbnail_2715609.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6518471/Huerfano-County/Colorado/Public-commenters-press-county-on-expense-reimbursement-and-receipt-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518471-c822ff19e8c9ec27362ccf4dd9b17801/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135601&Signature=THeM4xqchU64q-WO-KBy8hkTiET8bzkHSY-RN~0H5qN7Eb2mYQULhB-BKz5cFxafslrF~hmJOpDn0PqE3n11ET5orxTI6p3UyFeHq~UW2q1sIoPv06e6kCv3ygJh4SDuLBLXwqXNqau44KyLefawwEJDlHjmiOQ7BwtGLGgOJOUl3NBLdexlHAsXZiQCAMZKSBHI4gQnNUtUrFWl9M-0uKFeyWGamoGstU-Ev9~vPfncYpsg9nVrSXP3hw0WX0LEAaeeNyUU2xDkuqBJ5j4RhmY4IExcyBB2Y2e7lONpGqUB3s4IOy2pBwoTytU6baVpaeQ6Yd6MORnfR5tNJK1yfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Huerfano County","date","2025-07-15T21:12:52Z","article","A member of the public and county staff used the meeting’s public-comment period to raise and clarify the county’s expense-reimbursement rules, focusing on itemized receipts and whether certain meal or incidental purchases are eligible for reimbursement.

Craig Lester (identified in public comment) said he submitted receipts for training-related purchases and asked why the county would not reimburse some items without an itemized receipt. County staff read language from the county policy manual: \"Meals will be reimbursed at actual expense up to the state per diem rate. Expenses for alcohol and other non allowable items will not be reimbursed. Receipts for business expenses must be submitted with the reimbursement request.\" Staff said documentation showing what was purchased is required and advised claimants to obtain itemized receipts or otherwise document the order.

Commenters asked whether law-enforcement travel follows federal per diem procedures or county actual-expense rules; public speakers and a former county employee suggested making federal/state per-diem rules clearer in the county manual to avoid future confusion. One commenter sought confirmation that a sheriff's authorization should accompany certain training-related purchases; staff replied that the county requires appropriate documentation but that the policy applies to all departments.

Why it matters: Several public speakers said ambiguous guidance had caused reimbursements to be delayed or denied; county staff acknowledged the policy but indicated some documentation issues can be remedied and asked employees to follow established reimbursement procedures.

Provenance (transcript evidence)

First related public comment and question about receipts: \"I'm gonna give you the 500 southbound... I would like to know officially what policies that I did not follow that I will not be reimbursed for my own purchases...\" (transcript block starting at 2715.61)

Staff read policy text: \"Meals will be reimbursed at actual expense up to the state per diem rate. Expenses for alcohol and other non allowable items will not be reimbursed. Receipts for business expenses must be submitted with the reimbursement request.\" (transcript block starting at 2881.96)","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOCC Meeting 071525","oneSentenceSummary","During public comment a county employee and others raised questions about the county’s reimbursement policy for travel and meals, noting unclear guidance on itemized receipts and the treatment of alcohol on receipts; county staff referred to the policy requirement that receipts be submitted and that nonallowable items are not reimbursed.","taxTitle","Huerfano County, Colorado","taxId",27573,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6518476,"Huerfano County commissioners approve agenda, permits, purchase order and land transfer",3900,270659,4171449,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5391970-d8bf5528b4eb8f07dcf06876a0e09460&start=270&end=4171","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5391970-d8bf5528b4eb8f07dcf06876a0e09460/thumbnail_270659.jpg","/articles/6518476/Huerfano-County/Colorado/Huerfano-County-commissioners-approve-agenda-permits-purchase-order-and-land-transfer","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518476-bc89dfcdd4aaa8e77cd4ab202ec604f4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135601&Signature=g7yxEHYHG04CyCegqReX2XFW~BwlGrYbVP~CF0xIRoSKQeQaZD207Bn-k2EOtujIlLusAGqct2uZIOiwoZe02siHSgS6XZsZCvz1sd-MzoW7tjicPe-KseAjKHX4n-h~ceIHzJp~rKk5Zjr1Ln6ykPrUVlanYiGZ4fBcMKf4im0xhf-3jnry3d33ez8qvefmLSXgYnPDWjsbVykv5OguS~UjjhwntI~ZpJVmsmi8TtqzvSnbOnIS~iCu7w1bULjYHC0i4T6-0xeC1aN8imsK1vGsh5SbvxWDWyZibICrYyFtWgo1PtDkOEyLF6sza3VB54AoJMJBA4PluxprpzWfMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Huerfano County Board of County Commissioners on July 8 approved routine agenda items and several administrative actions, including a bulk water permit, a purchase order for bridge work and a property transfer to a local cooperative association.

Votes at a glance

- Agenda: The board approved the meeting agenda by voice vote at the start of the session. (motion made and seconded; recorded as passed.)

- Consent agenda: The board approved the consent agenda, which included new hires and rehires recorded in meeting materials (names on the consent list). (motion passed by roll call.)

- Bulk water permit: The board approved a bulk water permit for property owners listed in the record (motion made, seconded, passed by roll call).

- Purchase order 2025076 (Chaparral Construction): County staff presented purchase-order number 2025076 for Chaparral Construction to mobilize a lowboy excavator with hammer to break up an old concrete bridge on County Road 104. The board approved the purchase order; the staff speaker stated an amount of $3,740, then a motion stated $3,750. The record shows the motion passed by roll call.

- Property transfer: The board accepted a contract to transfer a parcel identified in the staff report (referred to in the record as Little Kansas, Wyatt Toya Canyon) to the Wyatt Toya Canyon Cooperative Association, citing a resolution (referenced as 24-46) that authorized the transfer; the motion passed.

Why it matters: The purchase order and permit authorize near-term county work and transfers of county-managed property; the consent agenda implements personnel changes recorded in meeting materials. The property transfer was described in staff documents and tied to a previously referenced resolution.

Details and clarifications

- Purchase-order amount discrepancy: staff initially read the Chaparral Construction mobilization amount as $3,740; the motion to approve used $3,750. The county record should be checked to confirm the correct contracted amount.

- Consent-agenda content: the consent agenda included hires and rehires (names and roles recorded in meeting materials). The board noted a typographical correction to Rhonda Kelly's entry during the consent vote.

- Land transfer: staff referenced a county resolution number (24-46) related to the transfer; the motion accepted the contract and the board voted to approve it.

Provenance (transcript evidence)

- Agenda approval: motion recorded at \"I make a motion to approve the agenda.\" (block starting at 83.915) and a voice vote recorded shortly after (block starting at 91.159996).

- Consent agenda: staff read items and motion to approve at blocks starting at 124.81 and 132.365; correction to Rhonda Kelly noted at 138.445.

- Bulk water permit: request described in staff remarks (block starting at 170.345); motion to approve at 213.01001 and roll-call approval at 222.785.

- Purchase order 2025076 (Chaparral Construction): staff presentation at 233.48; motion to approve purchase order at 252.345; roll-call vote recorded at 266.65997. (staff cited mobilization for bridge work on County Road 104.)

- Property transfer to Wyatt Toya Canyon Cooperative Association: staff presentation beginning at 270.65997; motion to accept the contract at 310.19498 and roll-call approval recorded by 330.91.

No executive session was held; the meeting adjourned at about 11:40 a.m.

Provenance segments for each action are attached in the article metadata.","At the July 8 meeting the Board approved the meeting agenda and consent agenda, authorized a bulk water permit, approved purchase order 2025076 for Chaparral Construction and accepted a contract to transfer county property to a local cooperative association.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6518481,"Residents urge Huerfano County commissioners to oppose proposed ICE detention center",3410,545778,3956355,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5391970-d8bf5528b4eb8f07dcf06876a0e09460&start=545&end=3956","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5391970-d8bf5528b4eb8f07dcf06876a0e09460/thumbnail_545778.jpg","/articles/6518481/Huerfano-County/Colorado/Residents-urge-Huerfano-County-commissioners-to-oppose-proposed-ICE-detention-center","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518481-6ff896dec81c2b7a82a7825e40baf7ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135601&Signature=d3ErSKKk6kbxjmt8bFzme3ES6miQ7XgOCa02uj2GxbeT3fe93FsrUV60ILSP1HE8GZkQxwjk32BxiftICQKV0moOWEJoFAcvYZXrlzFR72X83uGlSG~M6KuaDcpBHmaTpibPKXDtJe6s~AOi39z0L-JVzc-YC8qexm7WNOqGI2098NVN4Noxka55t0F4uq1VcFW5dnPMMHEZg~CIL-8prJ4YlmIVcPcqwBqRWrYVEPcCHNBNlWZQb5xO0i2HGx-5P8XO~qSxbGHEyWNrg~NPO8XvVx7dW3iszS3Bzry5x5rWNk3SvuzAVsi-tY8ov-plBrQtGx8Mh7IqAx5JOdHJUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dozens of residents told the Huerfano County Board of County Commissioners during public comment on July 8 that they oppose plans to turn local prison property into an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center, calling the facility inhuman and urging the county to use every available authority to stop it.

Speakers said the company CoreCivic and a private contractor, identified in public remarks as Apex Site Services, are seeking to operate a detention facility in the area. Multiple commenters asked the commission to hold a public information meeting, research whether a 287(g) agreement applies to Huerfano County, and examine permits or contracts that would allow federal immigration enforcement to house detainees locally.

The residents’ remarks tied the proposed facility to constitutional and humanitarian concerns. Daniel Cornell, who identified himself as a Walsenburg homeowner, invoked family history and told commissioners, “If he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and wants to put a concentration camp in your town, it's a Nazi.” Other speakers described the private-prison operator CoreCivic as having a record of abuse and criticized local officials for discussing potential revenue from housing detainees.

Why it matters: speakers argued the facility would affect community safety, reputation and local services, and they repeatedly pressed elected officials to use zoning, permitting and public hearings to block a privately run facility. Several people also asked the commission to clarify whether the county or sheriff’s office intends to enter any 287(g) immigration-enforcement agreements that would expand local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Commissioners’ response: a county official said the federal government is exempt from local land-use authority but that private contractors operating under federal contract would be subject to local permitting and zoning rules. The official urged residents that, if a private company submits land-use or permit applications, those applications would be posted publicly and go through the county’s normal review process, including planning commission hearings and public comment.

Residents’ requests and claims included numeric and legal assertions that were presented as citizen research or estimates; those claims were attributed to individual speakers and not verified by the county during the meeting. For example, one speaker cited a multi-hundred-million-dollar annual cost for a national detention program and a per-inmate annual figure for Colorado; another said the local facility under discussion could cost roughly $12 million a year for 750 detainees. Those figures were not presented by county staff as official estimates.

Speakers also described a range of alleged harms they said detainees have experienced under ICE operations, including limited access to legal counsel and medical care. Several asked the county to use its public-health and permitting authorities to confirm living conditions and health standards would be enforced if a privately run detention facility is proposed.

What comes next: commissioners and staff said they have not received a county-facing permit application for a second, “soft-sided” facility and that any private company application would trigger the county’s land-use review and a public hearing. Residents who asked for a briefing or an information session were told to submit documentation; several people offered to provide research the commission could review.

Provenance (transcript evidence)

First related public comment: \"Daniel Cornell. I live at 215 West Third Street in Walsenburg. I'm a homeowner here. I'd like to address the proposed ICE detention center. I'm gonna invoke my mother's name now.\" (transcript block starting at 545.77)

Last related reply from county official about land-use authority and process: \"No. The federal government is exempt from all local land use authority. But if they contract with a private company, that is not exempt. ... If an application comes in, it will be posted and go through the planning commission with public comment.\" (paraphrase of transcript block starting at 3923.655)","Dozens of residents used the public-comment period to urge Huerfano County commissioners to block or investigate plans for an ICE detention facility and to hold a public information meeting; commissioners said the county’s land-use authority is limited when the federal government is directly involved.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public commenters press county on expense reimbursement and receipt rules

Huerfano County commissioners approve agenda, permits, purchase order and land transfer

Residents urge Huerfano County commissioners to oppose proposed ICE detention center