| HOME |
While state funding is in flux many aspects of these projects hang in the balance. The LAO’s office issued its perspective on May 14th which can be read by clicking on the link just below. Basically it says the two facilities in Paso Robles have a very high priority and will probably be built soon. The total cost estimate at this time is $259 million.
These facilities are expected to employ between 600 and 700 people, most of which will have high paying jobs.
On Tuesday, November 18, the City Council approved three memoranda of understanding (MOUs) concerning operations of a Criminal re-entry facility on state owned property in the City of Paso Robles, thereby approving a proposal to establish a joint-use, re-entry facility to be operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). This facility of 500 beds (prisoners) would serve those pre-screened candidates for future good citizenship during their last 6-12 months prior to release into society by court order and operation of law. The vote by the Council was split 3-2.
This action followed nearly a year of negotiations regarding design, operations and release procedures. The MOUs dealt with many of the issues of significant concern to the Paso Robles community and its leaders.
The re-entry facility will be on the State owned property at the northwest corner of Dry Creek and Airport roads. It is a 157 acre property with the former Youth Authority’s Boy’s School taking up approximately 70 acres. That facility is being re-purposed into a 1,000 bed “correctional facility” containing 900, medium security, men over 50 years of age and 100 minimum security men from 21 to 30 years of age who will work on fire crews for Cal Fire during the fire season and on community work projects (under supervision and guard) during the off-season. Facilities on state owned property, being done by the State, are not subject to any local regulations or decisions. The State can do what it wants as long as it follows Federal and State law. However, state law itself (AB 900) provides that re-entry facilities, and ONLY re-entry facilities, require approval by the local government jurisdiction before the State can build within that jurisdiction’s boundaries. It is the only exception pertinent to the State owned property in Paso Robles.
A fire camp has previously been located on about 30 acres of land at the northeast corner of the State property directly across from the Paso Robles Airport. There is another 57 acres of vacant land on the western and northwestern portion of that property. That is where the re-entry facility would be built.
The already decided upon Level 2 Prison will be located in the re-designed buildings and secure area of the former “Boy’s School.” The Youth Authority, now the Juvenile Justice Division of CDCR, previously housed up to 1,000 wards of the court between 14 and 24 years of age in that facility. Repurposing of this facility to the new use is a low cost option for CDCR. The cost estimate as of May 2009 is $99 million. Plans are complete. Finding is in doubt due to the state’s financial condition but this project has a very high priority in Sacramento.
I served for over 25 years on the Citizens’ Advisory Council to that facility.
When it was the “Boy’s School,” the vast majority of all “wards of the court” kept there had been convicted of one or more murders. Many of them were already scheduled to go from that facility directly to the most secure prisons in the state upon reaching adulthood. These were the young equivalents of Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, etc.
As time passed the population at the Paso Robles facility dropped. Changes in policy moved many of them to facilities closer to their families’ homes. Some were transferred into the adult system. In December 2006 a Federal Judge made the finding that our prisons were overcrowded in violation of Federal Law. In January of 2007 the State of California’s Little Hoover Commission issued a report on our prison system that said, “The Governor and Legislature must find the political will to move past rhetoric and address ways to solve the prison population crisis and make good on promises to improve public safety.” The commission made three major recommendations which lead to AB 900 to establish re-entry facilities throughout the state. The full commission report can be red by clicking on the following link. at: http://www.lhc.ca.gov/studies/185/Report185.pdf.
The recommendations of the commission in the full report plus the threats of the Federal Court appointed receiver lead to a move to build more prisons and increase the number of beds. However, the financial woes that befell the nation and California recently also prompted proposals to cut prison personnel and release many lower risk prisoners back into society.
Despite this, the Paso Robles facilities and an expansion of the county’s women’s facility remain high on the list of priorities for implementation.
The inmates proposed for the re-purposed Paso Robles facility are much lower level “criminals” who are not to be released and who have demonstrated extremely “good behavior” over a period of years to become eligible for this lower level of security: dorms instead of individual cells.
There has never been any opposition to the fire camp. It is a top priority for Cal Fire and at the top of the “budget” list depending on the funding stream provided by the Governor and State Legislature in this budget cycle.
The re-entry facility still has to have final design approvals, environmental studies and mitigation approvals, specific program development elements, a funding stream and local involvement in engineering its success. Although it will provide between 250 and 350 new jobs, it is still some years away from being built and operated.
Had the City NOT approved the re-entry facility on the still vacant portion of this property, the State could have built any other prison facility it wanted to on land already designated for prison use. It could have built a regional prison hospital, a local equivalent to San Quentin, or anything in between. 57 acres could house upwards of 3,000 prisoners if built on the three or four story model. Our city would have had no say in any of those decisions.
San Luis Obispo produces about 140-150 prisoners per year who serve limited sentences. That is how many locals we expect. San Benito County has said they only produce 40-50 so they would like to share our facility and would pick their own prisoners up and transport them home upon release. Santa Barbara is exploring that same option and produces about 300 eligible prisoners annually. However, they are only contracting for 250 beds.
The numbers we have to go on are based on releases in 2007. San Luis Obispo County had 476 released back to our area. San Benito County had 45. Santa Barbara County had 548 released. Those are “gross” numbers. Unfortunately about 70% of those, on average, re-offended or will re-offend within three years, and will be back in prison. From my previous experience giving pre-release classes at Soledad on employment after prison, I believe that approximately 30% have no intention of re-joining society. Based on what the prisoners themselves told me during those classes, many of them are afraid of life outside of a protected environment. They like prison life and many have worked their way up in the system to positions of privilege. Those people are not eligible for this program. There is another group whom statistics show committed a crime that was so unique and specific that the chances of re-offending are less than 1%. Those people would also not be eligible.
The demographics of the “eligible” prisoners in each county are similar. All information is based on those with parole dates in 2008. San Luis Obispo has 300 total: 21.7% for crimes against persons; 9% for sex crimes; 29.3% for property crimes; 25% for drug crimes; and 15% for a variety of “other” crimes, which include drunk driving, arson and illegal possession of a weapon. San Benito County has 48:20.8% for crimes against persons; 8.3% for sex crimes; 14.6% for property crimes; 35.4% for drug crimes and 20.8% for “other” crimes. Santa Barbara County has 645: 25.3% for crimes against persons; 5.1% for sex crimes; 28.4% for property crimes; 28.5% for drug crimes and 12.7% for “other” crimes.
Each facility will need between 250 and 350 employees that are well paid. The State gives the jurisdiction in which the prisoners are housed a one time stipend for each prisoner. That stipend will be divided between the City of El Paso de Robles and the Paso Robles School District.
The MOUs provide for the transport of non-local prisoners to the county from which they came. In the case of San Luis Obispo County, those whose point of origin within the county was not Paso Robles will be transported to the County Jail for release. ONLY Paso Robles residents will be released within Paso Robles.
Throughout 2008, meetings between the State, officials from San Luis Obispo, San Benito and Santa Barbara counties and Paso Robles officials, which include Police Chief Lisa Solomon, City Manager Jim App, Assistant City Manager Meg Williamson, Community Development Director Ron Whisenand, Mayor Frank Mecham and myself, have taken place. They were very productive in getting consideration for exterior design features which will minimize the visual intrusion of the facility upon that area of the city. It will include hooded lights to eliminate sky glow at night, landscaped berms and setbacks, as possible, from both Airport and Dry Creek roads. The required towers are committed to be as attractively and compatibly designed as there functionality will allow. All entries will have state of the art, multiple, secure, enclosure gates. We have been assured by many people who work within the CDCR “system” that this type of facility is one of the safest that a community can get within that general category. The architects and engineers have been extremely cooperative and considerate in their approach to this facility and sensitivity to the community. All required environmental concerns will be addressed and mitigated as the law requires. However, we do not expect any special considerations in that regard as that would include serious budget issues.
This facility will be ONLY for prisoners already scheduled to be released in the designated communities within a year. They will be screened and must consent and WANT to get out and stay out of prison.
The facility will be used for intense counseling, pre-release work training, pre-employment interviews, pre-release housing arrangements, parole and counseling arrangements and learning about the way the world has changed while they were on “the inside.” Only those at risk of re-offending WITHOUT special training and help will be eligible for this program. Once they are done, they will be released to the county where they lived when their crime was committed
These meetings were sponsored by CDCR and were facilitated by CDCR’s then Deputy Chief of External Affairs Kathy Prizmich. The panel of speakers opening these meetings included Paso Robles Chief of Police Lisa Solomon, the Sheriffs of Santa Barbara, San Benito and San Luis Obispo counties: Bill Brown, Curtis Hill and Patrick Hedges respectively, CDCR’s Chief Deputy Director of Adult Programs Carole Hood, CDCR’s Associate Director of Reception Centers Terri McDonald and the Executive Director of Prison Fellowship Joe Avila. Prison Fellowship is a faith based group.
Following these meetings and workshops the matter was brought to the City Council on September 16 for consideration. The Council at that time gave a tentative approval based on the negotiation of acceptable MOUs regarding areas of concern.
Prior to the November 18 meeting those MOUs were negotiated and agreed upon by the respective staff people involved. On the night of the decision two members of the Council still wanted more public input or language that would bind future Legislatures to favorable actions regarding some of their long term concerns. Those two were not convinced that approval was the correct course of action.
Approval was given and the City manager was directed to sign the MOUs and to proceed with implementation assistance for the project.
When the old facility was notified of its closure, I weighed in to try and keep it open. I was told that it wasn’t possible. I then tried to save as many jobs as possible and arrange our ability to have some influence on the future direction of the facility. I am pleased with what we have accomplished and with the cooperation of the State in this matter.
I am more concerned about vacant land that I have no say about than a project where the public can be protected through local representation. I want to know what will happen to the vacant 57 acres NOW. I do not want it to be left up in the air. That was an important consideration for me in making my decision of support for the facility.
Each facility (level 2 prison and re-entry facility) will need between 250 and 350 employees that are well paid. That is a plus. The State gives the jurisdiction in which the prisoners are housed a one time stipend for each prisoner. That stipend will be divided between the City of El Paso de Robles and the Paso Robles School District.
Since we will have these convicted criminals, who have paid their “dues”, back in our community anyway, it makes sense to see that they get good training before release. It is better to have the services of this type of facility than to see former prisoners arrive disoriented to a strange world with a new suit and $200 in their pocket.
When the details are worked out in a reasonable manner, I believe our citizens can look forward to continued safe, family living with over 700 trained public safety officers living in and around our area because of the local, County and State jobs in the field of public safety.
I have been, and will continue to be, a very strong advocate for public involvement in the process, as I have been regarding every planning effort that has been initiated on my watch. I have also been a strong advocate for public safety through my many professions in my adult life.
There will probably be more public meetings about this facility in Paso Robles before it becomes a reality.
Those who want even more information than provided here can research the subject through an information search engine such as Google “Prison Re-entry Programs” or other topics to finds out what is being done in many places throughout the United States and the world. For the “official” word in California you can click the following link and pick your topic.