From: "Pierce, Crispin H." <PIERCECH@uwec.edu> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:48:28 -0600 Subject: RE: jail expansion Message-ID: <4F19260FE7477F4DA03B00B62E7F63903E010AF112@CHERRYPEPSI.uwec.edu>
Dear All,
I found Gregg Moore's well-reasoned analysis to be compelling, despite my s
trong preference for rehabilitation and early intervention to reduce crime.
It is clear to me that we need a new facility, and a location adjacent to
the existing courthouse structure is the best option, in terms of smart gr
owth, sustainability, and overall costs.
Best,
Crispin
________________________________
From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu [sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu] On
Behalf Of Mary Weil [mw2085@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:37 AM
To: sfpj
Subject: Fw: jail expansion
Below is a letter (blue font) one of my friends received from Mr. Moore, th
e supervisor Mr. Mowry mentioned. Below his letter are my concerns (in bl
ack and maybe clumsy and uneducated) with a few questions.
To continue the education process for us, in red are the responses from Ken
Fuglione.
Mary Weil
I thank you for sharing this. It is well thought out from Mr. Moore’s pe
rspective and should be respected… but also should be looked at for what
it says and what he fails to see.
I will try to respond and clarify where I am able ….. and give my opinion
s… (see below in red>) I do not mean to be disrespectful below… so ple
ase keep that in mind. Feel free to share my thoughts
Ken
My Thoughts on County Facility Needs and Plans - February 23, 2008
Gregg Moore - Eau Claire County Board Supervisor – District 17
At the corner of Lake Street and Oxford Avenue, the sign reads, “Eau Clai
re County Government Center.” Housed in the Government Center facility t
hat fills the block bordered by Second Ave., West Grand Ave., Oxford Ave. a
nd Lake Street are the courthouse, jail, joint law enforcement center (city
police and count sheriff) and other county offices. The courthouse and ja
il have been located on this site since 1873 (before 1952, the jail had bee
n located on the north end of the county’s Oxford parking lot at the corn
er of Oxford and West Grand).
This is all rather irrelevant…… but yes we did have a little house that
served as the original jail back in the 1800’s…. And the library is no
w city hall and there was a little house over by the hospital that is no lo
nger. The real question is …. Is the current space remaining adequate fo
r long term needs and if not …. do we want to continue down this path to
the degradation of the neighborhood and contrary to the current thinking of
the city as to how we want to protect and make better use of our city rive
rfronts.??? Or should we begin the migration and separation now.
For the past five years, county facility planning has been a major policy
item for the County Board. Elected officials, staff, citizens and consult
ants have devoted a great deal of time to assessing facility needs, studyin
g the options, and making recommendations for meeting both the short-term a
nd long-term needs of Eau Claire County and, in certain service areas, the
City of Eau Claire. The city currently leases space in the Eau Claire Coun
ty Government Center for the Police Department, Communications Center and C
ity-County Health Department.
Since 1991, numerous studies have been conducted that have consistently sh
own that, among other space needs, the law enforcement center needs much mo
re space and the current jail is extremely inadequate and poses significant
liability risks for the county. Some of the findings in the 2003 State of
Wisconsin Jail Inspection Report were:
Jail support areas are undersized or non-existent
There is lack of segregation areas for special needs, mental health, medica
l and high security inmates
Jail control areas are accessible to inmates and pose significant security
risks
Facility is not efficient, is staff intensive and is unsafe to operate.
Even if the need for more secure beds could be eliminated by reducing arres
ts, modifying charging practices by the district attorney, or reducing the
length of jail sentences, I believe the existing jail is fundamentally inad
equate and needs to be replaced.
The question of if we need a new facility is not at debate. I can see from
his long explanations that he is sincere……I also see from his comments
a need to re-locate a portion of the jail outside of the downtown area. F
rom everything I have followed and researched … yes the current justice s
ystem needs to be fixed and the jail as a part of that system as well as tr
eatment and services needs to be addressed…. Again we have not addressed
the long term plan and why the county thinks that this location is adequate
. Their own plans and projections show they will need more than this curre
nt 2 story facility is a very short time…. So why not plan correctly NOW
…????
From 2003 – 2005, the county conducted a major space needs study, which r
eceived extensive media coverage and included dozens of public informationa
l meetings. If I'm not mistaken, between 2003 and today, more than 100 pu
blic meetings of one sort or another have been held to seek public input an
d inform the public of the issues. In addition to documenting the county
’s facility space needs, 14 alternative scenarios were considered for add
ressing these needs.
This is funny. I wonder what he means by public meetings? I’ll bet Mr.
Moore thinks that every time a meeting is held and they post a sheet down i
n the foyer of the court house that the meeting is taking place …. It cou
nts as a public meeting. It is a different philosophy of constituent invol
vement I must say. When the public actually did attend sessions there was
strong opposition… it was politely listened to and the project moved on.
How many of his constituents signed the 1000 signature protest petition??
? Did he even look at who did sign it when it was left in the front of the
county board meeting room ….. What I find interesting is that the majori
ty of this process was not even known by the members of the board let alone
the public… if it did occur as I am sure it did in some fashion … Some
one did discuss these things and narrowed it all down…. But with very lit
tle true constituent involvement.
Democracy is a sloppy business…. There is always 11th hour questions by c
onstituents… and if the process is flawed and the constituents did not tr
uly have any opportunity to buy in and be involved In the process…. It ge
ts even messier … as it is now.
Four scenarios were selected for more in-depth analysis. Pros and cons, as
well as estimated costs, were identified for each the following scenarios:
I reviewed these scenarios and they were all or nothing pictures… limite
d by someone’s idea of efficiency. I never did see anything about a prop
osal supposedly presented by CTTC (????) Nor did I see discussion details a
bout a split campus concept where the processing, booking, intake and short
term confinement was maintained at a remodeled 3rd floor and the longer te
rm confinement & programs where located remote say out by the west side tec
h school ?? or outside of the downtown area. For some reason this less eff
icient concept was not discussed…. When they get the public in a discours
e they will find that there may be ideas outside of the box that may be wor
th considering.
Scenario 1 – Government Campus (new court services building and new jail
adjacent to existing building, between Second and First Avenue; law enforce
ment and other offices remain in current building)
Scenario 2 – Split Campus (new court services building adjacent to existi
ng building, between Second and First Avenue; new jail and Huber at a remot
e location; law enforcement and other offices remain in current building)
Scenario 3 – Addition Plan (close Oxford Avenue and build over parking lo
t; utilize space between Second and First Avenues for surface parking)
Scenario 4 – Remote Campus (remote location for jail, court services and
law enforcement; other offices remain in current building)
All of these are all or nothing approaches… and to be honest even though
we have a lot of data …. Until just last week we have not really even be
gun to analyze what it is we really need in terms of beds or the type of pe
ople we are serving or what their needs are…. But they KNOW WE NEED A JAI
L …. Bull, they wanted to build before they study… and if their idea of
getting the public input into a session is to have a non-elected person wh
o does not work in the system to be in attendance …. They did a bad job a
t it …. and now they still need to sell an idea that was not developed in
clusive of the public when it was born. >>> Sorry
In March 2006, the County Board selected the Government Campus scenario as
the preferred solution. This approach is consistent with the City of Eau
Claire Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2005 following significant
citizen input and involvement. The Comprehensive Plan “encourage(s) expa
nsion of the Courthouse facilities to be oriented east toward the river….
” The plan’s map indicates “Major Public Facilities” in the area b
etween the current building and First Ave. Plan also provides that “The
Courthouse campus serves as the key anchor for this (Courthouse) district a
nd should be designed to take better advantage of its riverfront setting an
d provide suitable transition to the surrounding neighborhoods.”
I believe we have a slight mis-understanding of the comprehensive plan… I
t is easy to use only the portions that one wants to apply. Visit the city
’s website for a full version that will clarify the need to respect the n
eighborhood as well …. It is also understood that there is a difference b
etween a courthouse campus….. and a 4 to 5 story jail no matter how it is
decorated. The long term plans of the county do not work into this area
… They need to begin moving some of it out of the area and NOW is the tim
e most suitable since a jail that will grow is best located outside of the
downtown.
I should note that the proposed Government Center building that would hous
e the jail is designed to blend in well with downtown Eau Claire architectu
re, be aesthetically attractive, and be a positive, complementary addition
to the existing facility. As a practical matter, the exterior design of th
e building is essentially independent of the interior structure and functio
n. In other words, the building facade can look like almost anything. Reg
arding the footprint of the proposed building, it is to be set back 30 feet
from the sidewalk on First Ave.
In June 2007, County Board approved building a new jail that would connect
to the current Government Center facility, expand law enforcement area and
address other county facility needs within the existing building. The Cou
nty Board also passed a resolution of intent to borrow $59.1 million to fun
d new construction and remodeling of the existing building.
In November 2007, the County Board adopted a budget that included a propert
y tax levy rate adjustment to meet the debt service requirements for paying
off the bonds within 22 years. At $3.62 per $1,000 assessed value, this p
roperty tax rate is still well below the median rate for Wisconsin counties
, $4.74. While expensive, I believe the proposed building project is fisca
lly responsible and reasonable.
The County Board continues to support numerous programs intended to reduce
recidivism and address some of the underlying causes of crime. These incl
ude Drug Court, AIM Court (which targets single mothers with drug, alcohol
and/or mental health issues), and Mental Health court. The Criminal Justic
e Collaborating Council (CJCC), which the County Board created nearly two y
ears ago, provides a mechanism for all the key players in the justice syste
m to address system wide issues. The CJCC, among other things, asked for a
justice system assessment (not just a jail study) by the National Institut
e of Corrections, a service agency of the US Department of Justice. It is
hoped and expected that the consultants’ recommendations will help improv
e performance of the overall justice system.
Although the consultants’ final report will be submitted in a few weeks,
they did make an unequivocal finding that was reported in the February 22
issue of the Leader-Telegram:
“You need a new facility,” Cushman said, adding that the present one is
“inadequate and undersized.” While Cushman said he wouldn't take a st
ance on the county’s chosen site for the new jail, he did mention that it
is best to have one in a city setting with easy access to community servic
es and transportation. A remote site not only makes it more difficult to g
et supplies and services to a jail, he said, but it stigmatizes inmates int
o thinking they are not part of a community.
I attended this “public discussion session” It was quite good but anoth
er of the hardly public sessions since it was never announced to the public
…. Any way… They did indicate that we needed to have more analysis and
as we all believed that a larger facility was needed. There as many option
s and positive benefits from a remote site, a split site and a new jail els
ewhere as there are for a jail on the river. The gentlemen presenting the
findings they put together over a 2 day interview and data compilation peri
od … did not want to comment on the downtown location of the jail because
they did not look at the site nor study the effects that site would have o
n the neighborhood and the community. They did indicate that a remote site
could stigmatize inmates and then went on to talk about the jail shaped li
ke a sheriff’s hat with a badge that was located out in the middle of a d
esert….. That is a far cry from the west side of the city where they woul
d be close to tech school facilities and training programs that would also
be able to be better expanded in that area …. And it is on the bus line o
r would be….
Based on three key criteria of need, cost and location, I continue to beli
eve that the past County Board decisions are in the best long-term interest
of the community. The needs are compelling and well documented. The cost
is expensive but, as I noted earlier, I believe it is reasonable and fisca
lly responsible. And finally, I believe the location of the new Government
Center building between Second and First Avenues is the most appropriate o
ne and is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
I think the new building will not be a blight on the riverfront, as some p
eople seem to think. As noted earlier, although the functions within the b
uilding will be for a jail, the exterior will be an attractive facade that
will enhance, not detract from, the riverfront or downtown development effo
rts. The building would be set back well away from First Avenue (30 feet f
rom the sidewalk) so as not to encroach on the riverfront.
What about future plans and expansion needs … why not include them in ou
r planning now????? We show is all squeezed in and we show the elimination
of Lake st homes …. We even have a map showing the elimination of Grand
Ave businesses…. What will the long term need be?
I also believe that it would be a major mistake to separate the jail from
courts and law enforcement. Even with continued use of video arraignment t
echnology, there would be permanent increased costs and security risks asso
ciated with transportation of inmates from a remote jail to the courthouse.
I and many other believe it would be a mistake not to split the campus now
and use the property for the betterment of downtown planning…. So now we
have opinions without consensus from the constituents who have to pay for
this and leave it as the heritage of our city…
If the courts and law enforcement as well as jail were moved to remote loca
tion, I believe that, too, would be a major mistake. Separate county comple
xes would decrease public convenience and increase costs for travel between
facilities. I also think it would adversely affect downtown economic deve
lopment. Not only would many government employees no longer be working dow
ntown (and eating and shopping at local establishments), but also many asso
ciated businesses would likely relocate to be nearer the courts (e.g. law f
irms, Public Defender offices, and Probation and Parole).
This is a totally false scare tactic…. Please don’t even waste your tim
e re-reading that bunk. With a place for an expanded courthouse and a remot
e split jail facility we would have room for specialty shops, restaurants a
nd boutiques along a meandering bike trail along the river …. And those i
n the county building and courthouse and visitors would flock to the area
…. See it all depends on the perspective one wants to paint.
So in conclusion, I believe that, on balance, the proposed building plan m
akes the most sense and will have a positive, not a negative, impact on pub
lic services, the downtown, the riverfront and the community.
And I and many many constituents that he should have consulted with along t
he process do not believe that this is the best direction for the city and
its new commitment to develop and improve our river fronts.
Though I neither a rich investor nor a developer, I am a citizen of Eau Cla
ire. My concerns and comments are:
I think Mr. Moore makes a valid argument for the jail to be on the riverfro
nt, but I still wonder what will be the state of need for a further expansi
on of the jail in the next 10 to 15 years. The current investors will be l
ong gone with new investors taking their places. I will still be around, h
opefully, and do not want to have to revisit this need then. If it is as w
e were told, that the original construction was just a band-aid and that th
e need was not addressed when this jail was originally built, and that a de
cade from now, the cost will be even more compared to today's standards and
then we will once again need to fulfill the requirements of an inevitable
expansion. Will this also be on the riverfront? What is the long range pl
an for further needed expansion??
Though the argument may also be a good one regarding publicizing the inform
ation over plans for a jail and community opportunities to have dialogue, a
s in any situation, the citizens of any community have many other things on
their agendas such as: increased taxes and how to pay them, who will get t
he second job to help put the children through school, will we drop health
insurance to pay other bills, etc. These concerns are more important to the
average citizen than concern for jail proposals that are in the early stag
es. This attitude of truly concerned citizens is unfortunate but true anyw
here, not just in Eau Claire.
I do not feel the plan fits the city's comprehensive plan as I am a purist
and would have no buildings blocking the view of the river from any behind
it. That of course is my personal opinion. I also do not approve of this "
imminent" eminent domain (in almost any case) and that our county and city
government is moving in to evict small businesses and homes. This to me, p
ersonally, is indefensible.
A couple more concerns: The statement: "A remote site not only makes it
more difficult to get supplies and services to a jail, he said, but it sti
gmatizes inmates into thinking they are not part of a community".
We are not a backwoods community with wagon paths here. One can go almost
anywhere within a few minutes on very well maintained roads. I need furthe
r detail as to what this consultant is attempting to infer. Also, might a
less "fancy facade" reduce the cost of the building, then expenses to trans
port prisoners and get supplies to another location be considered a wash (w
ith a practical cement gray building away from the public and tourists' vie
w)?
I also need good psychologically based information as to why a different lo
cation for the jail "stigmatizes inmates into thinking they are not part o
f a community". Maybe a better question is what has gone on in the lives o
f these inmates that have caused them to not feel committed to our communit
y nor feel respect for his or her fellow citizens?
That question leads me to ask the following. What are the taxes for busine
sses in our community? Is there a tax break to keep businesses from leav
ing and going elsewhere? I would rather the jail be unattractive in some
more remote area and cause criminals to go elsewhere where they can enjoy a
lovely riverfront jail. (A bit of humor) Is there a county strategy to ma
ke businesses commit to the community? Are there tax incentives for busine
sses that make them identify with the community? Why would a business ident
ify with the community if it does everything in its power to prevent itself
from paying its fair share of taxes? We seem more concerned for prisoners
to feel they belong and commit to our community than we are businesses.
Most confusing in this scheme of things is the increase in property tax to
fund the jail. Our city and county needs to take into consideration one's a
bility to pay yet another tax increase. This letter is not a condemnation
of taxes. However, it is a condemnation of taxes that result (literally) i
n people losing their homes. I believe that taxes, when applied fairly, pr
ovide necessary and essential services. I understand the value of a new jai
l. But taxes on homeowners in this area must not increase without regard t
o the ability of individuals to afford such increases. The so-called market
value of a home is not necessarily indicative of a homeowner’s other ass
ets. For those with a limited income who happen to live in an area where pr
operty values may increase dramatically, the problem becomes insurmountable
. How many people have had to resort to using credit to pay property taxes,
further going into debt just to keep their modest homes? This must be a c
onsideration in how much citizens are to be taxed for this new jail.
Between 1970 and 2003 the share of property taxes in Northern Wisconsin pai
d by residential owners went up from 46% of the total tax bill to about 70%
. At the same time the share that businesses paid decreased to 30%. People
argue that if we tax businesses more they will leave the state. On the cont
rary, taxing corporations their fair share should be viewed as part of doin
g business; their responsibility and pride of being members of a community.
Though they use the same services, they are paying a smaller and smaller s
hare of the costs. Why? Is it because big business is very successful at l
obbying our lawmakers? So, I ask again. Is there a commitment from the co
unty and city to tax corporations their fair share as a part of doing busin
ess because there is a sense of responsibility and pride from those busines
ses in being members of our community? Or is Eau Claire more concerned abou
t the stigma inmates might have of not feeling a part of a community they h
ave just assaulted?
Hmm...I guess if I have to make a decision, if we are even slightly panderi
ng to big business, I opt for businesses rather than inmates to be influenc
ed into thinking they are a part of the community.
As for the concern about business loss from moving the prison from the rive
r area, I need the data on how much business is done in the downtown by jai
l personnel and what would be the financial loss to downtown businesses?
Would we be better off continuing to improve downtown and thus attract new
small businesses, get our people to shop and eat downtown and promote tour
ism? I truly wonder about the concern for the long term future of Eau Clair
e as the developers' trend continues to build businesses in the green space
out by the mall. I understand there is work being done downtown but truth
fully, do the developers continue to influence the council members rather t
han the citizens?
A tourist friend recently stated to me: "You know, Eau Claire used to be s
o beautiful as I drove into this area of Wisconsin. I thought of it as "The
Gateway to the Northwoods". Now, its beginning to look like any other big
city with all the trees gone and the chain restaurants and stores taking t
heir places. It is disappointing to me."
Mary Weil