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.
The report that you quote seems to have the supporting information you desire about the number of beds in the proposed facility. Page G-15 shows that the jail population about doubled between 1990 and 2005, then projects future ADP (average daily population) based on this past trend. Using this analysis, the ADP goes to around 60 by 2030.
ReplyDeleteOver the next three pages, the report goes on to discuss how this is just a starting point to try to project the number of beds. As an average, it can be expected that the population will often be above the average. The report also discusses the trend at the state level to push certain classes of inmates from the state system to county jails. This could mean as much as a 50 percent increase in the county jail population, independent of the trend.
So, the worst-case scenario shows that a projected ADP of 60 translates to a need for 112.5 total beds. The capacity to accomodate just the projected ADP (without the 50 percent increase of the worst case scenario) still shows a need for 75 beds to allow for peak periods and the separation of males/females and different classes of offenders.
Based on the size/cost of large projects recently (school buildings, for example), $15 million does not seem out of line.
In this post I acknowledge that I think we will have to pay the piper on this need to improve our criminal justice system, so I will ignore the cost issue for now.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you think the size of 110 beds is justified (I do not), and as it says in the Sourcebook the proposed facility is designed for "efficient expansion", do you think there is some reasonable future size of the jail that urban planners would come to say is inappropriate for a residential neighborhood next to downtown? Would 150 beds be that point? Would it be 200 beds?
If we invest $30 million now (construction costs + interest) we will lock ourselves into an urban jail. This is a jail that is build for "efficient expansion" and if the worst case scenario of a flood of new inmates beyond our control happens, we will have an even larger jail built sidewalk to sidewalk over two city blocks next to downtown. We we wait until then to say we should have built smarter in 2010?
As far as the contention that the numbers you quote in the Regional Jail study are the only numbers that should be looked at to make this decision of a right sized urban jail. I would ask why did every other county in the UP use more recent data to base their projections on? Every county except Houghton used inmate data since 1996 (the plots are in appendix V). The report author, Rod Miller, notes in the Marquette section that more recent data should be a better predictor for future needs than longer term data. The jump in the data that occurred locally in 1997 was likely due to the passage of the Truth in Sentencing Law in Michigan that cased inmates to spend more time in jail. It is an anomaly that skews the linear regression.
Hey George -- if you read my post, I did not say the 110 bed number is justified, nor did I say those are the only numbers to look at. I was responding to the item in your post saying that county residents are left to speculate where the number came from. They aren't. The numbers are in the book.
ReplyDeleteThe jail component of the proposed Justice Center would house a total of 110 beds, 80 in the traditional jail and 30 in the work release section. Presently we have a total of 54 beds available (officially), about half of those at the airport work camp. Already our average daily population in recent years is exceeding 40. It is not unusual for the population in the traditional jail to exceed our lawful bed count, resulting in mattresses being put on the floor. Our consultant estimates the average daily population for 2035 to be 62. In order to properly segregate inmates by level of risk and by sex, and to allow for needed flexibility, unusual peak demands, and routine maintenance, that means we should have at least 78 beds. Work release beds are relatively cheap to construct and manage, and are in a part of the proposed jail not conducive to future expansion, so building a 30 bed facility with space for both male and female inmates during initial construction seems to be a responsible choice. It reduces our staffing load, allows for remedial programming, and gives the courts greater flexibility in sentencing non-violent offenders of both sexes.
ReplyDeleteHoughton County has the lowest incarceration rate (number of inmates per 1,000 residents) in the Upper Peninsula—even lower than Luce County, which has no jail. The Baraga County incarceration rate is 2.5 times higher. The average rate for all 15 counties is nearly twice Houghton County’s rate.
Based on analysis of data, discussion with officials, and experience in other U.P. counties, we expect an initial surge when new standards-compliant jail space becomes available, followed by the resumption of the historical growth rate.
Applying the average U.P.-wide incarceration rate to the projected jail growth for Houghton County, the 2035 average daily population (ADP) would be 101 inmates. Converting ADP into jail beds by applying the peaking, classification and maintenance factors yields 126 beds. The consultant and the committee both believe (hope) our future needs are much smaller, hence the recommendation for 80 secure, classified beds and 30 work release beds.
Other factors also point to increased demand for jail space. Early release of prison inmates back to their communities to save the state money is likely to result in increased parole and probation violations. Presently, those sentenced to more than one year go to prison; there are discussions about increasing that to two years, again increasing the number of jail inmates who would have to housed locally.
Dean,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to get involved in this issue. I am convinced that our community has no choice but to resolve the weaknesses in our Criminal Justice System. We need for everyone to look closely at this issue and get informed so they can make an informed choice on Nov 2.
As you know, most people will not take the time to read the details especially if they are not easy to find. I have asked for a concise basis of the 110 bed number since before the County Commissioners voted to send this option to the voters. The repeated answer for that question has been that "A National Expert made the recommendation."
I see Bill has provided a post that explains the calculations, so I will try to address my concerns there.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteYour post on the justification of the 110 bed jail size is a good explanation of the basis for this calculation. Thanks.
I do have some questions particularly on 1) the ADP numbers and 2) the rationale for getting from a functional jail estimate to the recommended size.
1) The Miller report has HoCo ADP data (Figure 1.3, pg G6) listed by month in a table but not averaged to show the actual yearly average. When I calculated the yearly averages from the Miller table, I get different numbers than that reported on the Michigan Department of Corrections web site (http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,1607,7-119-9741_49414-207773--,00.html).
Which are the correct numbers?
2) The calculation seems to be:
(110 Jail Bed Size) = (Projected ADP) x (1.25 combined classification, peaking, maintenance factor) x (1.5 additional mystery factor). I agree with the 1.25 factor but it's that last 1.5 factor that I question most.
Can you provide more information to support the 1.5 factor?
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI'll use the Michigan Department of Corrections numbers referenced above for discussion. They say the Houghton County ADP is 32.2, 34.5, 35.0, 32.9 inmates for 2006, '07, '08, & 2009 respectively. This is after removing the small number of inmates currently boarded in from other areas. I do not think Houghton County has ever had a yearly average ADP of over 40 as you claim. Maybe you can point me to the data that supports this claim. It looks pretty steady in the mid-30's. I am sure with (daily and monthly) peaks and other issues, we would need a modern jail of about 50 beds to meet current HoCo demand.
The fact that our Sheriff's office currently manages this routinely in a jail with 26 beds (and some overflow out to the Airport facility) is remarkable at best and horrifying at worst. I fully accept there is a dire need that must be dealt with sooner and not later. Thank you for raising the alarm and pointing this out. I also agree with you that the need is just as dire in other elements of our existing Courthouse activities.
I disagree that we should be using UP averages to project future Houghton County demand. We have our own data that better reflects the local situation. The fact that we have a low incarceration rate is a very positive thing and something we should be proud of, rather than trying to discount so we can embrace a higher growth rate. We should absolutely strive as a community to maintain a low incarceration rate.
One point made in your post that is of particular interest to me is the "initial surge" in inmates with a new jail. I would assume that this surge comes at least partly from out of the area because we would have extra beds available to rent. I think if this business potential exists (boarding inmates) we should be looking to exploit it rather than criticizing it. If we could make money by boarding inmates, we could use that income stream to not only help pay for the own jail needs, it would create good local jobs.
It is my firm belief that there are at least 5 reasonable and doable solutions to our Criminal Justice System needs. Everyone of those options has good and bad points about them. The option I like best involves moving the incarceration part of the project out of the center of town so we can use it to generate money and jobs. The other necessary parts of the Justice Center proposal would likely then be embraced by many of your opponents as suitable and desirable development in the urban core. We could also include some community type space and functions in the project. This would also leave open the possibility of selling the HHS building lot to the community (currently listed at $100k) for a HHS Alumni Park. This type of project would give voters something to vote for rather than against.
As a citizen of Houghton, I will continue to object strongly to any and all efforts to build a new large jail in the center of town. I would much rather be an active proponent of a solution that offers a more positive future for Houghton than a Walmart sized jail in the center of town.
I say "Open Kitwen and Create Jobs!"
http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2009/01/ogemaw_county_officials_are_ba.html