Friday, October 22, 2010

Letter takes the mystery out of Justice Center tax questions

Houghton County Treasurer, Kathleen A Beattie wrote a straightforward letter to the Gazette showing how to calculate your expected tax increase if the current Justice Center proposal passes.

To the Editor:

It has come to my attention that many voters in Houghton County are confused as to how much they will pay for the proposed Justice Center. I will take you through a simple calculation that you can all do in the privacy of your own homes.


Find your last tax bill that was mailed July 1 of this year. Somewhere on that tax bill are the words "Taxable Value." Take the number next to those words and do the following - I will use my own Taxable Value (TV) to illustrate: TV = 41,938


Now put a decimal point where the comma is in that number, making the number to use in your calculations 41.938. Multiply 41.938 by 1.2956 to get $54.33, which is what I should expect to pay for the first year. This is a yearly amount.


The following year, as long as taxable values increase in Houghton County, the millage rate should go down. The County cannot collect more than is necessary to pay down the yearly bond payment. If taxable values go down, then it is feasible for the millage rate to go up. However, at this time, Houghton County's taxable values have been increasing every year over the prior year. Increases are due to new construction and property uncappings (when property is sold).


If you still cannot figure out how much you owe, please call me or email me at treasurer@houghtoncounty.net and I will gladly figure it out for you.

It is far better to be fully informed than to make an important decision with incorrect data.


Kathleen A.Beattie

Houghton County Treasurer

Houghton

Thursday, October 21, 2010

A photo is worth a thousand words

A simple comparison of the Mining Gazette's photo of an empty cell due to maintenance issues vs. tour photos published by the Houghton Co. Sheriff's Office. Draw your own conclusions.

Mining Gazette front page photo of unused cell (maintenance issue)
Houghton Co. Sheriff official cell photo
Houghton Co. Sheriff official jail photo

Mining Gazette source
Sheriff source

Justice Center too much - a letter to the editor

Justice Center too much
POSTED: October 21, 2010
http://mininggazette.com/page/content.detail/id/512293.html?nav=5004

To the editor:

After reading the article in the Oct. 19 paper, one would have to wonder if our local commissioners are thinking with their heads or taxpayers' dollars.

First, from the pictures that were posted in the paper it appears that our old jail is being neglected and not maintained properly. A can of paint and a brush(es) and an inmate assigned for this detail, would certainly put a new light on this situation and cost probably around $200 dollars, including a new toilet.

Secondly, about safety to the public etc., this could easily be taken care of by putting in video conferencing equipment in the jail and court house, there is no reason an inmate on arraignments has to be brought in the court room for this. One deputy could easily handle numerous arraignments from the safety of the jail, while keeping the inmate locked up.

Attorneys can also walk over to the jail and interview their clients in the jail not in the hallways of the court. It's convenient for the judge and attorney to have them in court. Really, the only time an inmate has to go to court is for a formal trial or to plead on criminal charges and sentencings, usually in Circuit Court.

Thirdly, upgrading according to the honorable Judge Wisti who commented on the Schoolcraft jail. Hmm. $50,000 to bring their jail up to Michigan standards. Houghton County Jail is at least twice the size of the Schoolcraft jail. Hmm. $100,000 maybe to bring it up to standard. (Cheaper than $15 million). (Where is it written that our jail has to be five-star quality?)

A second floor could be built above the original jail to house citizens who break the law. Cheaper than $15 million? You bet. Camp Kitwin could also be upgraded for a lot less than $15 million.

Remember, the bigger the county jail, the more staff, food, heat, electricity, up-keep, etc., will be needed and that equals more taxes down the road.

Let's face it, it sounds like our local government is following the foot steps of our big spenders in Washington. They talk like a million or billion dollars is chump change. Just let the taxpayers take care of it. The way the economy is, we need a new jail like we need a new debt.

Laura Kinnunen
Atlantic Mine

Corrections Stats - State of Michigan

Some interesting reading from the National Institute of Corrections...

Vote No on a Big Urban Jail

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

New district court, sheriff’s department part of plan - Mining Gazette #3 of 3 part series

The Daily Mining Gazette is running a 3-part series on the Justice Center. Content is below, and please refer to the links for the continuing coverage.


Part 3:

New district court, sheriff’s department part of plan

By GARRETT NEESE, DMG Writer

POSTED: October 20, 2010


HOUGHTON - A new district court and sheriff's department are part of a proposal for a new justice center to be built across the street from the current courthouse.

The proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot would authorize the county to borrow up to $15 million for up to 30 years. The owner of a home with a fair market value of $100,000 would pay an average of $33.91 per year.

An estimated 1.2956 mills would be levied in 2011; that number would then decrease in subsequent years.

The new district court would be on the second floor of the Justice Center complex, with space in line with state standards. An elevator would bring inmates from the jail to a holding area, which the existing court does not have.

The District Court accounts for about 80 percent of court appearances, said Sheriff Brian McLean.

The district court offices, now in the courthouse, are 400 square feet, a third of the state standard.

Defendants and the public enter the courtroom through the same entrance, which is at the end of the narrow hallway.

"The hallway's so backed up you have to push your way through," Judge Mark Wisti said.
Much of the time, the district courtroom is standing room only. The cramped space also extends to the office area.

"The office space for the civil and the criminal are literally 3 feet from each other, and a lot of the civil litigants don't feel comfortable around the criminal litigants," Wisti said.

Wisti said the new district court offices would be a "500 percent improvement."

"I don't think you'd be able to compare them," he said.

The sheriff's department would be on the main floor of the facility, along with jail administration.

The expanded space would provide more room for workers and improve accessibility for the public.

Handicapped access to the sheriff's office now requires going more than 200 feet from the main entry.

From 1963 to 1980, the sheriff's department building was the personal residence for the sheriff and his family; closet railings are still visible by the shelves in McLean's office.

Spaces serve multiple functions. The same room is used as a conference room, interview room, lunch room, armory, equipment storage and sometimes as an evidence room.

The repurposing of a residential space has created some tight fits. The undersheriff's office is in the former third bedroom; a desk stretches much of the width. The captain's office was made out of the former outside entrance; a former inmate who was a mason was put to work building two block walls and a heated floor.

"We've used up pretty much every foot," McLean said.

The number of employees exceeds the locker space. A mismatched assortment of surplus lockers is tucked away in the downstairs in what used to be the lineup room; down the hall, a detective's office is also used for storage.

"It's all we've got, so we use it," McLean said.

Wisti has gone to several presentations on the proposal. He said by the end, the public's reception to the idea is usually warmer.

"I think there's a common awareness in the community that there's a problem and something has to be done about it," Wisti said. "Win or lose, I think we've done that."

For more information on the Houghton County Justice Center proposal, go to www.houghtoncounty.net. For more information from residents opposing the plan, go to www.houghtoncountyjusticecenter.com. To read the regional jail and facility re-use study, go to www.upcap.org.

Garrett Neese can be reached at gneese@mininggazette.com.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Jail centerpiece of Justice Center - Mining Gazette #2 of 3 part series

The Daily Mining Gazette is running a 3-part series on the Justice Center. Content is below, and please refer to the links for the continuing coverage.


Part 2:

Jail centerpiece of Justice Center

By GARRETT NEESE, DMG Writer

POSTED: October 19, 2010


HOUGHTON - After 47 years, the Houghton County Jail is obsolete, overcrowded and potentially disastrous, officials have said.

A 110-bed, 32,000-square-foot jail is the centerpiece of a new justice center on the November ballot that would also include a new district court and sheriff's department facility.

The Justice Center would cost up to $15 million over a span of up to 30 years. The owner of a $100,000 house would pay $33.91 in the first year, with decreasing amounts in following years.

The current jail has a footprint of 7,940 square feet. In addition to 28 beds at the jail, the county has 26 at a work camp at the Houghton County Memorial Airport. Of 14 Upper Peninsula counties with a jail, Houghton has the lowest amount of jail beds per capita.

The county has been studying the jail problem since 1985, said Sheriff Brian McLean. Studies in 1999 and 2002 reached the same conclusion - replace the jail.

"It's been studied, studied and studied," he said. "All of the same issues have been gone over by each committee. By planning for it now, and taking charge, and doing something, we have control over what it costs."

The new facility would put jail and work camp beds under one roof, creating more efficiency, McLean said.

The jail is considered full at 80 percent capacity - "but we're always over capacity," McLean.

"A lot of times, we may have felons and misdemeanants mixed, because we have no place to put them," he said.

On Wednesday, the jail houses 34 inmates. One six-man cell was holding seven, with the odd man out lying on bedding on the floor.

One inmate looked at the bright side.

"I've seen nine in here," he said.

Another cell was empty because of a leaky toilet, taxing the space even more.

A table in the jail hallway opposite the holding tank is used for meetings between attorneys and their clients. Other inmates could easily listen in from a door on the adjoining wall, McLean said.

The tight space also leads to unsafe spaces with blind spots, such as the jail's laundry room.

"One thing you don't want are these blind alleys and corridors that go nowhere, and that's what we have," McLean said.

Officials say the new facility, which would allow for bringing defendants into district court via an elevator, would be safer than the current procedure, in which they are brought into court through the same entrance along with the public.

The larger jail will also allow space for more activities, such as cognitive behavior, jail ministry and General Equivalency Diploma programs, that might lower the recidivism rate.

A 2009 regional jail and facility re-use study for the Upper Peninsula projected that Houghton's average daily population would reach 62 by 2034.

The study assumes a jail with that average would need 25 percent more beds than that to account for peak populations, maintenance periods and the need to separate inmates for various reasons.

In the worst-case scenario, the report said, Upper Peninsula counties could see as much as a 50 percent increase in inmates on top of those projections. That number would result from state prison closings and early releases, leading to ex-felons charged with new crimes, parole violators on technical violations, or people charged with high court misdemeanors that would have been felon charges.

"Hopefully, this surge of new inmates will not arrive at U.P. jails, but county officials should keep this possibility in mind as they improve and expand their jails," the report stated.

McLean said the state has purged 9,000 prison inmates over the past five years; in that time, state jail populations have risen 30 percent.

"It has an impact on the local jails," he said. "Though crime may be decreasing, numbers in jail are increasing."

If the jail isn't replaced, McLean said, it could be subject to a constitutional challenge. He pointed to Genesee County, where inmates sued the county because of unsafe conditions.

District Court Judge Mark Wisti mentioned the possibility of a situation such as Schoolcraft Township's. Last month, the state Department of Corrections ordered the county to make $50,000 in repairs to bring the jail up to state standards.

Opponents of the proposal concede the need for a new facility. But they want a different location or format.

"This is not about whether or not we're going to build a Justice Center," said Houghton resident George Dewey. "It's whether or not we'll build this Justice Center."

One of the most frequently suggested ideas is using Camp Kitwen, a minimum-security 240-bed state work camp in Adams Township vacant since 2009.

A county analysis done last year by the Gettysburg, Pa.-based CRS, Inc. estimated it would cost $5.3 to $5.5 million to convert Camp Kitwen, which would include adding administrative space, creating separate space for female prisoners and dividing cells by security levels. Additional operating expenses, including the equivalent of seven-and-a-half full-time jobs, would cost the county more than $500,000 per year. Over 30 years, the study found, using Camp Kitwen would cost $7.3 million more than building the new jail.

The county would also only be able to lease, not buy, Camp Kitwen, the study found.

Houghton County Commissioner Anton Pintar said the justice center committee had extensively looked at other sites.

The committee was also hesitant to locate the jail separately from the sheriff's office and district court, which by state law must be located at the county seat, due to increased transportation costs and staffing needs.

The group also rejected plans to build on or around the existing jail, which they said would require closing Huron Street and demolishing the buildings. Only 5,940 square feet of the current jail could take on a second floor, the group said, while adding multiple floors would require additional staff.
Demolishing the courthouse parking deck to add parking would require closing South Street and buying additional property, the study found. Also, the parking deck only has half the size that would be required for the jail.

"In the end, the most cost-effective site was to locate the center on those empty lots acoss from the courthouse," Pintar said.

However, said Dewey, the county could relieve some of these costs by converting Kitwen into a regional jail.

"I think if you included the income from other inmates, we're looking at more than $200,000 a year in income," he said. "If you include that, it's a lot more competitive."

Dewey also disagreed with the notion that a wraparound jail would be unfeasible; he suggested a three-story addition behind the jail that would wrap around the existing jail with steel perimeter columns.

Opponents of locating the proposed Justice Center by the courthouse point to wording in the regional study that suggests Ontonagon and Keweenaw counties seek long-term partnering opportunities with Houghton in the event of a new jail. The Justice Center sourcebook notes that the facility is sited for future expansion and partnership options, though it also said the regional study "did not identify any current regional partnerships that are both feasible and cost-beneficial for Houghton County."

Dewey suggested along with the Camp Kitwen approach, the county could build a smaller facility for the district court and sheriff's department in Central Houghton, or build a smaller three-story structure on one city block. The smaller footprint would make the building less visible from downtown, and could allow the former Houghton High School block to be used as an alumni park, Dewey said.
"People don't want a Walmart-sized jail in Houghton," Dewey said.

Houghton County Commissioner Scott Ala, who cast the only vote against approving the ballot language for the proposal, said some inmates from other areas may wind up staying in the Houghton area.

"When those people are cut loose, they're done with their sentence waiting to bring them back to Gogebic (County), back to Ontonagon ... if they've got no place to go, they might have a place to go here. I've seen them, sitting outside the jail, thinking 'Where am I going to go?'" he said.

McLean said like now, the jail may take in a small numbers of prisoners from other counties. But the idea that it will become a regional jail is "completely untrue," McLean said.

"Just as we don't want to have an inmate at other counties, I believe they don't want to pay to have inmates at other counties ... they're just as strapped as we are," he said. "In small groups, out of necessity, they will, but we're not going to have a regional jail."

Some residents also questioned the lack of input into the decision making behind the center. Ala favors a process such as the one used by Leelanau County to construct a new government center. The county asked residents which site they preferred.

To comply with state law, the Leelanau County seat was relocated to the new site, which has a 72-bed jail and a 6,000-square-foot jail set up for expansion. In that setup, unlike the proposed Justice Center, both district and circuit court defendants would walk directly into the courtroom.

"We'll have to walk our inmates across Dodge Street, and it'll be our worst convicts," Ala said. "They don't even do that now."

Ala also touted the community space available in Leelanau County, including a meeting room with tele-conferencing.

McLean said Leelanau County's situation isn't a good comparison.

"They moved it to the most populated part of the township," he said. "We're already in the most populated part."

As for the process of determining the site, McLean said the commission had done a thorough job of examining the possibilities, and has been out in the community throughout the summer to discuss the plan.

"We're not railroading this through on anybody," he said. "We're out there, giving honest answers to people."

Ala said the city of Houghton had shown interest in using the space; if asked, Hancock and Michigan Technological University Public Safety might too, he said.

"We're going to have a cutting-edge facility for one police department," he said. "Maybe we should bring them together and it wouldn't cost more for a new courthouse and jail than it does for the Justice Center and we'd have even more efficiences."

McLean said he couldn't see making any large-scale improvements in the near future if the Justice Center proposal fails. Making a slight addition might be feasible, McLean said, but it would only be a temporary fix.

"Then what are we going to do in five to 10 years?" he said. "We're still going to remain landlocked. Will the needs remain the same? I think they will. Will the costs remain the same? I don't think they will. ... We've invested heavily in our area, our schools, our hospitals, our libraries, our colleges; we're just asking to keep up with everybody."

For more information on the Houghton County Justice Center proposal, go to houghtoncounty.net. For more information from residents opposing the plan, go to houghtoncountyjusticecenter.com. To read the regional jail and facility re-use study, go to upcap.org.

Garrett Neese can be reached at gneese@mininggazette.com.

  

Justice Center on Nov. 2 ballot - Mining Gazette #1 of 3 part series

The Daily Mining Gazette is running a 3-part series on the Justice Center. Content is below, and please refer to the links for the continuing coverage.


Part 1:

Justice Center on Nov. 2 ballot

By GARRETT NEESE, DMG Writer

POSTED: October 18, 2010


HOUGHTON - Houghton County voters will decide in November whether to approve the construction of a combination jail, sheriff's department and district court across the street from the current courthouse.

Under the proposal, the county would levy up to $15 million in taxes over no longer than 30 years to pay for the construction of a two-floor facility to the west, to be called the Houghton County Justice Center.

County officials say the new structure will be more efficient, and is necessary to replace what have become outmoded and outdated facilities; the jail and sheriff's department building date back to 1963, and was last renovated in the 1980s.

"It's been at capacity for several years now, and it's just getting worse," Houghton County Sheriff Brian McLean said of the jail. "We've lost the ability to put people where we want to put them."

According to county figures, the owner of a home of average value ($75,412) would pay an extra $33.91 per year in taxes. The levy would start off at 1.3 mills in 2011, dropping to an average of .9929 mills over the 30 years.

A citizen committee group began meeting last year to determine the location and components of the new facility. The group settled on the location for reasons including its closeness to the courthouse and a state law requiring the district court and sheriff's department to be in the county seat.

The land was the site of the former Houghton High School building and now also houses the Pewabic Street Community Garden. If the building is approved, plans call for the garden to be relocated to the western edge of the land.

The proposal has drawn criticism from some Houghton County residents concerned about building such a large facility in a residential neighborhood. Some have suggested alternate ideas, such as moving the jail to Camp Kitwen or building a new complex on a non-residential site.

"It's difficult for me to imagine how a large urban jail fits inside a livable community," said Houghton resident George Dewey. "It doesn't make sense."

A previous proposal combining the jail and sheriff's department, also located across Dodge Street from the courthouse, was voted down in 2000.

In the current plan, the sheriff's department and jail would be located on the main floor.

The county can currently hold 54 inmates - 28 at the jail and 26 at a work camp located at the airport.

That amount would more than double at the new facility to 110 beds. Of those, 80 would be for jail inmates and 30 for the work camp.

The committee based the number on projections done by national jails consultant Rod Miller, who factored in population growth, peaking and classification factors, and the possibility of the state releasing prison inmates.

The jail would be built two stories high on a single level, which would allow the cells to be stacked and controlled from one control booth.

The 97th District Court would be on the east end of the upper level. The space would triple the square footage from 400 square feet to 1,200 square feet.

Prisoners would be brought from a secure elevator from the jail to a holding room. In the current building, prisoners are brought up through the same hallway, and sit in a mixed area in the courtroom.

"A state inspector came here and said, 'This is probably the worst court we've ever seen,'" Judge Mark Wisti said.

The lower level would include a secure parking garage and elevator for staff from the court and the sheriff's office.

Commissioner Anton Pintar said if the proposal is voted down, it will probably be 10 years or longer before the county tackles the problem again.

"At this point, the county board would probably do nothing," he said. "All we could do was just limp along. I'm afraid sooner or later there'll be a major event that will force us to build a new jail. Contrary to what some people think, there is no cost-effective alternative."

Garrett Neese can be reached at gneese@mininggazette.com.

  

Monday, October 18, 2010

Report of the Justice Center Study Committee

Read the Sept 4th study by the Justice Center Study Committee with photos by Bill Fink here:

http://www.houghtoncounty.net/docs/HoCoJusticeCtrh.pdf

The report contains the Assignment, the Current Situation, Concerns, and The Alternatives. It would be nice to have a full, unbiased "pro" and "con" list for each option but alas... Mandatory reading regardless of your stance on the issue. Please review and distribute.

Houghton County Justice Center Conceptual Perspective
Justice Center Conceptual Site Plan
Justice Center Proposed Site - Aerial View

Saturday, October 16, 2010

No Prison in Houghton - graphic

Looking for a little more 'oomph' with your opposition to a large, expensive, centrally located 'Justice Center' in Houghton? Chris Schmidt has created a striking graphic for our grassroots cause. Please feel free to spread it far and wide.

The Smart Choice will Generate Jobs

The Smart Choice will Generate Jobs
and Help Pay for the Justice Center

There are at least 5 different viable options for solving the shortcomings in the Criminal Justice components of our County Government. All of these possible options have both good and bad points about them that must be considered.

A) Option A is the current Justice Center proposal next to the existing historic courthouse, This option includes a 110 bed modern Jail, new Sheriff’s office, and a new District Court. All of these functions are housed in a 50,000 SF two story rectangular structure spanning 1 ½ city blocks. It is also build for efficient expansion when needed. Supporters of this plan point to efficiencies associated with housing all these functions in one building, but opponents have major objections to building a Large Urban Jail in central Houghton.

B) Option B would locate the jail at Camp Kitwen so that it could be a no-frills facility that is built large enough to be used to generate income by boarding inmates from other counties. The other functions of the Justice Center including the District Court and the Sheriff’s law enforcement functions could easily be accommodated in a more modest facility in Central Houghton. This more modest facility could also include community space and functions that would be available to all Houghton County residents (not just the inmates).
Michigan Law clearly states that the jail can be located anywhere in Houghton County. The Camp Kitwen facility was previously used as a minimum security prison for 240 inmates and was closed in 2009 resulting in 38 lost local jobs. A national expert on jails – Rod Miller of Community Resource Services (CRS), estimated it would cost $5.3 to $5.5 million to remodel Camp Kitwen into a modern Houghton County Jail. This estimate seems reasonable in light of the 125 bed jail just opened in West Branch, MI for under $6 million.
The primary advantage of the Camp Kitwen location is that unused beds could be rented to other counties to board inmates after sentencing. If a 200-bed jail were created at Kitwen, the 150 beds not currently needed by Houghton County could be rented out and could generate millions of dollars per year in additional income. This money could be used to create new jobs at the facility and for transporting inmates as needed. Many counties operate with their jail facilities separate from their courts and safely and efficiently transport inmates to court when needed. In fact, some of these counties also use a video link to handle some interactions with the courts.

C) Option C would involve moving the entire Houghton County Government activities to a new location. If a suitable location can be found in the city of Houghton, the county seat would not have to be moved. Leelanau County just build a new entire County Complex for $17.5 million and moved the county seat also. Their county complex includes a 72 person jail that can be expanded if needed. Depending on location, this type of move in Houghton County could happen over a period of time rather all at once.

D) Option D would include remodeling the existing courthouse facility by removing the parking deck and building a new 3-story addition on the back. This new addition could wrap around over the existing jail with steel perimeter columns on the outside of the jail. The jail and courthouse could remain operational while this construction occurred. The major disadvantage of this option relates to limited options for expanding the jail. Because of the sensitive nature of adding on to a historic building, this option would require a larger design fee.

E) Option E would include a scaled down jail from the current Justice Center plan in Option A, and be built as a 3 story structure next to the existing courthouse. The advantage of this option is that keeps the 3 components of the criminal justice system in one building and it could be built on only one city block. This type of facility would be less visible from downtown Houghton. Opponents object to the urban jail with concerns about future expansion.
----
It would be nice if the Justice Center Committee could show up at the October 28th meeting at the Houghton Public Library prepared to answer questions about their assertions about why these alternatives will not work.
In particular, it says on page 6 of the Sourcebook that over a 30 year period, the Camp Kitwen Jail alternative would cost more than the proposed urban jail. Please show us the numbers used to make this statement. In the comparison you made, do the budgets for either facility include income from boarding non-Houghton County inmates? If not, why not?
The Justice Center Committee claims their national expert recommended a size of 110 beds. Please provide a detailed explanation of the rationale used to arrive at this size. Specifically, what historic ADP numbers were used to arrive at the projected 2040 ADP and in the equation below, please explain the “mystery factor” of 1.5 apparently used to get to 110 beds.
# of Beds = Projected ADP (60) x Functional Size Factor (1.25) x Mystery Factor (1.5) = 110
Voters voted down an urban jail plan in 2000 and will likely do so again on Nov 2. The County Commissioners will then have to decide whether to abandon the urban jail concept in order to get voter approval. Sometimes it takes 3 or 4 jail votes before elected officials listen to the voters’ concerns and put forth a plan that a majority of the community can support.

IF YOU WANT TO_____AND
THEN
ON NOVEMBER 2




Letter Reveals Major Flaw in Jail Size Calculations

Justice Center Committee member Bill Fink wrote a letter to the editor finally revealing their rationale for sizing the large urban jail in central Houghton. In doing so, he reveals a major flaw in their calculations. They use the historic inmate population for the jail and airport workcamp combined to project future need. They then treat this combined jail and workcamp estimate as it were for the jail size only. Their estimated size of 78 beds would be reasonable if it were used for the combined jail and workcamp. Instead they take this combined estimate and arbitrarily add on 32 more beds to get to 110 beds.

http://mininggazette.com/page/content.detail/id/512170.html?nav=5004

If his speculations about Houghton County getting overrun with new inmates because of fears about what the State may do are true, then wouldn't it be better to locate the jail someplace where it can be easily expanded? Someplace like the empty Camp Kitwen? A 200 bed jail could be built at Kitwen with the extra beds rented out to create an income to pay for local jobs running the facility.

Open Kitwen - Create Jobs

Thursday, October 14, 2010

LWVCC endorses Large Urban Jail in Central Houghton

Read all about it - The Copper County League of Women Voters (LWVCC) endorses building a Large Urban Jail in Central Houghton.
http://mininggazette.com/page/content.detail/id/512162.html?nav=5004

I am confident that there are many LWVCC members that will VOTE NO on this project.

Most of their letter to the editor focuses on the need for a new jail which is not the main issue. In endorsing this particular project they only offer the assurance that the large size is "based on the best current projections by an expert consultant using years of local data and state trends" This same expert consultant (Rod Miller) advised adjacent counties in the Copper County to look to Houghton County for help with their future jail needs. This same national expert estimated it would cost $5.3 to $5.5 million to convert Kitwen into a modern regional jail.

There are better options than a regional jail in central Houghton.
Open Kitwen and Create Copper Country Jobs.

Voters said NO to an Urban Jail 10 years ago. Please VOTE NO on November 2 on this proposed urban jail so we can consider a better option. Please ask your friends to VOTE NO too.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Saturday Meeting - Yard Signs and fliers - Questions?

Saturday, October 9th
Noon - 1pm
Portage Lake Library, downtown Houghton

A gathering of Houghton County citizens
who are concerned about the Houghton
County Jail Facility Bond Proposal

Do you have questions or concerns about Houghton County's
ballot proposal for a $15 Million 110-bed jail complex in the
center of Houghton? We do! Have a voice in how your tax
dollars are spent. Want to be part of a better solution?
Be an informed voter on November 2nd.

Attend this brief meeting, get some yard signs and flyers, help
inform other voters. Please reply if you would like a sign, but can't attend.


Criminal Justice System - Demand a Better Solution

Houghton County Voters

Demand a Better Solution

George Dewey, Concerned Citizen

Houghton County Voters,

In addition to the many important candidate elections on the November 2 ballot, Houghton County voters will also be asked to vote on a bond proposal for $15 million to fund the construction of a Houghton County Justice Center. The proposed Justice Center consists of a new jail, sheriff’s office, and district court. More information about this proposal can be found in the Justice Center Sourcebook that can be found on the Houghton County website (HoughtonCounty.net). The Justice Center proposal represents the final recommendations of a committee formed by the Houghton County Commissioners in 2009 to address longstanding issues associated with the jail, sheriff’s office and district court.

Our Houghton County Commissioners voted (4-1) in July to accept the committee’s recommendations and to ask voters to fund the proposed Justice Center with a $15 million bond referendum on November 2. There has been a lot of recent discussion in the community related to this proposal with a number of different opinions expressed. Houghton County voters have a responsibility to educate themselves on the merits of this bond referendum so they can make an informed decision (rather than an emotional one) before they vote. I have studied this issue at length and will try to express some of my observations and opinions in the hope that they will generate a dialog with interested voters.

I would first like to thank the Justice Center Committee for the time and effort they have put into studying this issue and developing what they believe is the best solution for Houghton County. The committee membership is listed in the first pages of the Sourcebook and includes a virtual who’s who of good people in our community. I would urge everyone interested in this topic to respect the work done by this committee and restrict your comments to the merits of the proposed Justice Center and not to question the motivations or integrity of those who served on this committee. While I personally have a number differences and concerns about what has been recommended, I value the effort and contribution made by this committee.

The committee has done a good job of highlighting a very real and continuing need in our community. I believe that anyone who has taken the time to look closely at this issue will agree that we have serious shortcomings in our jail, sheriff’s, and district court. While these elements of our local government are the focus on this discussion, I also recognize that almost all other groups housed in the existing courthouse also function in cramped and dated quarters. For those of us that have little or no direct interaction with these elements of our local government, it is easy to ignore these shortcomings or feel that they are someone else’s problem. But as citizens of this community, we do have a legal and moral responsibility to address them. Regardless of what we may personally believe is the best course of action, I can assure you that these shortcomings will not go away and that we will have to address them, including paying higher taxes to pay for the necessary improvements.

The most common objections that I hear from other concerned citizens relate to 1) the size of the proposed jail (110 beds), 2) the central location of the proposed new jail (next to the existing courthouse), and 3) the cost of the project. I will try to address each of these separately. As for the proposed jail size, I realize that projecting the future need or numbers of local inmates (over the 30 yr life of the bonds) is difficult at best. Many things will influence this including future population trends, Michigan laws concerning which inmates that counties must house, local approaches to how offenders are sentenced, and many other things that we may or may not have control over. Regardless of the difficulty in projecting future needs, the proposed size must be based on something rational that can be easily communicated to those asked to make a decision (i.e. voters). Lots of information about existing Upper Peninsula Jail populations and trends is available online (at http://www.upcap.org/programs_services/jail.html). Information specific to Houghton County is contained in Appendix G. A summary of trends and projections for all UP counties is presented in Appendix V. Throughout this report, the approach used to project future need is to use a linear regression of past average daily inmate population (ADP). They then multiply this ADP by a 1.25 factor to get from a projected ADP to a functional jail capacity. I assume that data from this report was used to arrive at the proposed 110 bed jail size. Someone on the Justice Center committee should be able to answer specific questions about how the 110 bed size was arrived at. To date my requests for specific information on this process have been met with either silence or a blanket statement that they relied on a nationally recognized expert to recommend a size. The committee should not be surprised that county residents have real concerns about the size and so they should be able to provide or obtain answers to specific questions on this issue. Lacking this supporting information, it is not surprising that voters are left to speculate on why the size is 110 beds and what will come of the beds above the current Houghton County ADP of 35. Elsewhere in this report prepared by their national expert, governments officials in Keweenaw and Ontonagon Counties are advised to look to Houghton County to help with their jail needs. The combination of a lack of answers to justify the proposed size and advice to adjacent counties to look to Houghton County would cause many reasonable people to be concerned about whether the Justice Center is being sized to accommodate Houghton County needs alone.

On the issue of the proposed location in central Houghton next to the existing County offices, there are many different opinions. The committee points out that this central location offers efficiencies associated with keeping all County government activities in a single location, which is reasonable. When adjacent residents express their objections to the new jail, some argue that a jail has always existed in that area. While it is true that a small jail has existed adjacent to the courthouse, it is in fact very low profile and not visible from more than a block away. The new proposed facility is a 50,000 SF multistory building that will be clearly visible from downtown Houghton and across the canal in Hancock. Many believe it would be more appropriate to locate the jail out of a residential neighborhood. The option expressed most often is using Camp Kitwen, which is 9 miles from the current courthouse. This option is rejected by the committee as more costly because of the travel necessary to bring inmates to court. The only way I know to account for these additional costs is by a life cycle cost analysis. As noted in the Planning Synopsis for the New Allegan County Jail - "Jail facilities are complex facilities and construction costs typically only reflect between 10 and 15% of the overall cost of a facility over a 30 year period." The committee makes the statement on pg 6 of their Sourcebook "The consultants found that the 30-year costs to renovate and operate Camp Kitwen as a jail would cost $7.3 million more (11.7%) to operate than the proposed new jail that would be part of the Justice Center." When asked for the specifics of the analysis used to arrive at this number we are told that they do not exist. It is hard for me to imagine that they would make this statement as fact in their Sourcebook and not have data to back it up. Locating the jail out of the County seat is allowed by Michigan law. While there are reasonable arguments for why this is not desirable, these reasons need to be balanced in light of the undesirable impact, now and in the future, of locating a large and expandable jail in the urban core. Reasonable people are right to question if this is good urban planning. Many communities have jails remote from the courts and rely on transporting inmates safely to and from court. Yes there are costs associated with this option, but lets do a realistic comparison of the real costs associated with all options and then try to balance them with the other factors that are not easily quantified. Of course this option does not deal with the very real needs of the district court. The district court could be accommodated with a separate much smaller new stand alone building next to the existing courthouse or could even be part of a combined court/jail complex located on the edge of town in a non-residential neighborhood. If it is reasonable to expect our jail needs to continue to grow as we are led to believe, it seems more reasonable to me to work hard now to move it out of the center of town. If that means eventually moving the entire County complex too, that should also be planned for.

Lastly is the issue of cost. I agree that nobody really likes to pay for government buildings, salaries, and services that they feel they do not benefit directly from. We all benefit from the services of the jail, sheriff’s office, and district court whether we realize it or not. Some argue that the timing of this proposal in not good in light of the current economic conditions, but people need to realize we are dealing with a long term issue that will be with us through good and bad times. I am concerned with the cost of this proposal but have come to realize that we will be required to bear the cost of finding a solution to these real and pressing needs one way or another. We cannot continue to put it off indefinitely without incurring additional costs (both financial and safety).

While I personally do not feel I can support the bond initiative for this Justice Center for the reasons stated, I acknowledge we will face this issue again - sooner rather than later. I would like to be a constructive part of finding a suitable solution. I hope that next time the county actively engages the citizens as part of the planning process, rather than assume that we need to be educated only after the decisions are made.

Asking us to be Quiet and just vote will not work.

3 Reasons to Vote NO on the Justice Center

Reason #1 ­ - It is TOO LARGE
­
The proposed size of 110 beds is not justified.

The data provided by the Justice Center Committee does not support the projections of needed jail size. The data used by the Committee to estimate needed capacity in 2040 uses total Jail and Work Camp population since 1990. In projecting need in a recent regional jail study, every other county in the UP used inmate data since 1996. If Houghton County uses the same range of data as the other UP Counties, the projected need is much smaller.

Using inmate data (both jail and workcamp) since 1996 (same as other UP counties), the projected average daily inmate population in Houghton County in 30 years is under 60 inmates. If 60 is multiplied by 1.25 to account for classification (male/female/health,etc), peaking, and maintenance – a reasonable size jail would be closer to 80 total including work release (since work release numbers were used in the original projections).

When asked how they arrived at the proposed size, the committee members say they relied on a National expert to recommend a size. This is the same National expert that advised adjacent counties to look to Houghton County for future help housing their inmates.

The Committee notes that the current county budget will not cover the expected costs of operating the new larger jail complex. Are they counting on renting out beds to adjacent counties to cover the increased operating costs? If the jail serves adjacent counties as expected, it in effect becomes a regional jail financed by Houghton County taxpayers.


Reason #2 – It is TOO EXPENSIVE

The published cost estimates do not tell the entire story. Borrowing $15 million over 30 years will require taxpayers to pay almost $15 million additional in interest over the life of the bonds. The total project cost over 30 years is closer to $30 million.

Ogemaw County just built a new 125 bed jail in West Branch, MI for under $6 million and they plan to run it like a business by renting out inmate space to adjacent counties.

Jails are complex facilities and construction costs typically only reflect about 10% to 15% of the overall cost of a facility over a 30 year period.

Reason #3 – It is the WRONG LOCATION

To build a large jail in central Houghton that is designed for efficient expansion is just bad urban planning.

The county should seriously consider creating a regional jail at Camp Kitwen. Many other counties in the UP have similar needs for additional jail facilities. Camp Kitwen has a large bed capacity and would cost less than the current jail proposal. Considering facility costs (the state still owes $5 million in Bonds), and remodeling costs (Houghton County jail consultant estimated $5.5 million remodeling costs to convert Camp Kitwen to a Jail) – a regional jail at Camp Kitwen would cost less to build than a new regional jail in Central Houghton (Sourcebook pg 9 – “The proposed Justice Center is planned and sited to provide a range of future options for regional partnerships, with Houghton County as the lead partner.”) The proposed plan shows a jail complex spanning over 1 1⁄2 city blocks with plans for expansion. (Sourcebook pg 5 –“ It is possible, if not likely, that other counties would be interested in boarding inmates in the new jail as space is available. The proposed Justice Center is sited and designed to facilitate efficient future expansion.”)

The idea of a Regional Jail in Central Houghton that could eventually span 2 entire city blocks simply does not make sense.

- George Dewey

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Concerned Citizens - Saturday Meeting

Saturday, October 9th
Noon - 1pm
Portage Lake Library, downtown Houghton

A gathering of Houghton County citizens
who are concerned about the Houghton
County Jail Facility Bond Proposal

Do you have questions or concerns about Houghton County's
ballot proposal for a $15 Million 110-bed jail complex in the
center of Houghton?  We do!  Have a voice in how your tax
dollars are spent.  Want to be part of a better solution?
Be an informed voter on November 2nd.

Attend this brief meeting, get some yard signs and flyers, help
inform other voters.  Please reply if you would like a sign, but can't attend.