Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Prison Site-1997
CITY OF SANDY ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARCTkEiWENG COVER SHEET FOLDER STRUCTURE [ :t i~',,'" (Depax u2ent) DOCUMENT NAME: DATE RAxNGE: 1995-2000 1990-1995 1985-1990 1980-1985 1975-1980 1979-1975 Before 1970 RETENTION: None 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 20 years Permanent DISPOSITION OF DOCUMENT AFTER SCAtN~IxNG: Return to Depa~ Lment Store at Recycle City of Sandy Memorandum DATE: March 27, 1997 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Scott Lazenb~ d/~ RE: PRISON SITiNG PROCESS If the "Smejkal" site is on the list of sites nominated by the Department of Corrections, the Siting Authority will hold a public meeting in Sandy on April 25. State law allows local governments and individuals to submit to the Siting Authority "conditions" to the siting. These are similar in nature to the conditions the Planning Commission places on land use applications. An example of a condition would be, "reimburse the city water utility for the use of water capacity, based on the cost of developing the Salmon River water source," or "reduce traffic impact on Baty and Cherryville Roads by requiring prison staffto use van pooling and by restricting visitation." The Siting Authority, in making its recommendations to the Governor, must recommend which conditions should be met and which need not be met, and why. The conditions are due to the Siting Authority by 5:00 pm on Monday, April 14. We had been considering a public forum on the issue during the week of April 14, but it now appears that may be too late (the dratSing of"conditions" would be a good way to provide a focus or end product for a forum). The week of April 7 will be busy with a Council meeting on the 7th and Budget comrmttee meeting on the 9th. One option would be to hold a brief Council meeting at 6:00 pm on April 7, and then hold the forum at the high school or community center at 7:00 or 7:30 pm. Another option would be to hold the forum on Saturday, April 12. This would provide more time for a full exchange of information. Please let me know your preferences and suggestions. I am trying to contact Katy Tobie and Mike Ragsdale to see if either of them would be interested in moderating the forum. Because the city has no direct jurisdiction over the area proposed for the site, and because the state, under the "super-siting" authohty, doesn't need city approval to use our water and sewer services, I recommend that the City Council not take a position either for or against the site. The City Council can, however, play a valuable leadership role in encouraging an open exchange of information between the State and local residents, and in providing a mechanism for local concerns to be identified and defined. Contact: PerriB Damon, (50.3) 945~0923 DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS OFFICI~ OF THE DIRECTOR ~fhree Potential Tri-County Prison Sites Nominated :bda?, as directed by OR.9 421.616(I), OregOn Department of Corrections Director Dave Cook nominated three potential p~sor, sites h~ ~e tri-cou.n~ area, The Departanent of Corrections ~ticipates building a co gender b~take tac~ty and women% prison (approximately 1600 bed~) on one of the non'dmmted sites, The..%oa,~nated sites .+or the won'teD's complex and co.gender intake center,, in alphabetical order ci~; include: Hi~sboro Butternut Orchard site Hillsboro Seaport site W~lsonv~e Dammasch site Ihe~e r~onzinatior~ wer~ made to the Corrections Facilities Siting Au~ority, a five-member panel , orreCtions Facih.~e~ ~itinm Autt~ozity will hold public he~x~mgs ap?orate6 by Governor Kitzhaber. Tl.e C . ~ - ~ be~veen April 23 and April 26, 7997. 'They wil2 then deliberate and evaluate each n0mh~ated s~te, fi.nelly selecvmg :md r~mkmg sites that wi!/be submitted to Governor IGtzhaber mr Ms approval. 'flax governor ~ expected to decide the fh~al list of sites for the new prison witt~ 15 days of receivbag the ~,iPalg authority's hst, as reqz~i:?ed by law, whicl': wi5 be on or around May 22. Copies of ~e consultants' reports to the Department of Corrections are available for reYuew at DOC , "- , "~" ° ' t, Lq S~dew,. Ihe ~ may ~Iso be pur~ed for $10 ea~. ~e official Bz~.oodoft~es, ~,¢~l~thS~ee SE ) no~afion report is expected to be available ~ or aro'~d Aprk 2 ~ 99Z -30- 2575 Cemtar S~eet Salem, OR 97310 (503) 945-0920 FAX[50~) ~7~-117~ COUNTY MEETING NOTICE Board of Commissioners JUDIE HAMMERSTAFJ CHAIR BILL KENNEMER C©MMISBIONER ED LINDQUIST COMMISSIONER CLACKAMAS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL Chair: Doug Poppen, Director, Juvenile Department, Clackamas County Vice-Chair: Terry Hart, Chief, West Linn Police Department THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1998 4:30 - 6:30 P.M. LOCATION: C-COM 2200 S. KAEN ROAD OREGON CITY REMINDER: Do not park in the Sheriff's lot. Parking is allowed along the road. Thank you. For further information, contact staff: Donna Peterson, at 650-8937. 906 Main Street · Oregon City, OR 97045-1882 · (503) 655-8581 · FAX (503) 650-8944 E-MAIL bcc @ co.clackamas.o r. us AGENDA CLACKAMAS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL May 28, 1998 MEETING 4:30 - 6:30 P.M. 1. Decision: 2. Discussion: 3. Discussion: 4. Discussion/Decision: 5. Public Comment 6. Adjournment Approval of the Minutes from the 12/18/97 Meeting Committee updates LPSCC Annual Conference update - D. Poppen 1998 Workplan for the CCPSCC CLACKAMAS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL Minutes from the December 18, 1997 Members present: D. Poppen, Chair, T. Hart, Vice-Chair, D. Martson, S. Lazenby, G. Lawhead, B. Kennemer, B. Billesbach, R. Bradshaw, G Canaday, R. Selander, J. Hildner, R. Kappa, T. Gustafson, A. Belais, M. Rasmussen Members absent: M.A. Hard, M. Janzen, J. Schwabel, W. Stephenson, R. Thom Others present: L. Nickerson, Juvenile; Rick Hill, OYA; Rhonda Reese, Gangs Task Force; Rod Cook, OCF and member of the Gladstone School Board; I. Lewis, Corrections; Greg Peden, OYA; Karen Brosseau, OYA; T. Grolbert, Sheriff; D. Koch, Corrections; Bob Jester, OYA; Bill McGee, State Budget Office; S. Bracey, Corrections; J. Ares, Citizen. Chair Poppen convened the meeting at 4:35 p.m. The agenda was changed to delay decision items until a quorum was present. Introductions were made. First item on the agenda was a presentation by the Oregon Youth Authority by Director Rick Hill. Mr. Hill explained that OYA staff was touring the state to introduce themselves and to provide an update on OYA activities to the local public safety coordinating councils. He noted that the '97 Legislature added a nonvoting position for OYA to local councils. He congratulated the CCPSCC on the fact that an OYA representative had been given membership from the council's earliest days. Mr. Hill stated that OYA was building institutional capacity to deal with M11 offenders noting that new beds had not been added to the system in 10 years. OYA has opened two new facilities and 2 more are soon to be opened. Mr. Hill mentioned the need to add capacity up front now to build community capacity in the form of shelter care, status offenders, mental health issues and alcohol and drag treatment. He noted that these efforts would complete the task of rebuilding the Oregon juvenile justice system. Mr. Hill distributed handouts explaining the juvenile justice platform. Mr. Hill provided an overview of the new juvenile justice information system explaining that with a statewide system all counties and local law enforcement agencies will be connected. Karen Brosseau explained that most counties have stand- alone systems with no sharing of information and no standardized data collection system. The intended purpose of the new system will be: 1) as a tool for workers in the field; 2) to increase public safety by making information on juveniles' past involvement with the system available to local law enforcement and pertinent agencies; and 3) as a tool for policy decision making. Ms. Brosseau reminded the council that SB I required data collection and program and service assessments. The fin'st module was a pilot project funded by a Byme grant and conducted in Mulmomah and Polk counties. Certificates of Participation will be used for development and implementation of the system but IGAs will be required with participating counties. It was noted that if funding is available by January, all counties could be on-line by the end of the biennium (6/99). The system should include the Court system and LEDs and has been designed with expanded use in mind. Eventually, the system may allow local law enforcement agencies to connect with each other and with juvenile departments. Funding being requested from the E-Board in January, if granted, would fund COPs over 6 years. T. Hart had questions regarding the differences between record retention for juveniles and that of adults. It was explained that the '95 Legislature passed laws restricting juvenile record expunction but that many regulations come from the federal level. It was noted that the trend has been moving toward greater sharing of information. With regard to concerns mentioned about this trend, it was mentioned that limiting access to information is a possibility with criminal information retained but access limited to certain parties. The proposed system does not exist in any other state. The state will pay for development of the system, training, and telecommunication with the county paying for hardware and staff to operate the system. An IGA will be developed with the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners in January '98. Page 3. Minutes from the 12/I8/97 CCPSCC Meeting. of crime as opposed to the amount of crime and suggested measuring community reaction and attitudes toward crime and reduction efforts, public knowledge of the system and perceptions of same. He suggested examining costs to victims, the community, and of the system. It was proposed that a GIS system of sociaI demographics in the county be developed using the community measurements as a baseline. J. Hildner noted that funding would be required for a survey but that adding some funding to Progress Board surveys to increase the sample size in Clackamas County could minimize cost. R. Bradshaw stated that the perception of crime is problematic. T. Hart stated that he is more interested in measuring the impact of programs and services than a public survey. He expressed his desire for the committee to meet again and to develop something more manageable. R. Bradshaw noted that OSP is developing a program to track and assess the effectiveness of corrections programs. S. Lazenby stated his opinion that the committee is on the right track. M. Rasmussen distributed information regarding the Residential Services Outcomes. He explained the outcomes and performance standards and discussed the need to simplify the process. Mr. Rasmussen requested feedback from the Council on the document. Corrections Briefings pamphlets and Performance Measures for the Field Services Division were distributed. D. Martson expressed concerns that funds collected from offenders are not paid first to victims for restitution. J. Hildner suggested that the Council could propose changing the law that regulates who gets paid first to one providing for a proportional distribution. Chair Poppen provided the Juvenile Services Committee update. He noted that the largest issue is the number of beds available, noting that Clackamas County has a contract for 14 beds but recently had 8 M l 1 offenders in those beds. This situation created problems with local law enforcement agencies due to the inability to take in truly dangerous offenders and the need to release others. Mr. Poppen informed the Council that the Sheriff is talking with the State about what is owed to the County for the State's continued use of OCIC. He mentioned the possibility ofa cellblock for juvenile offenders. Also, a committee has been formed to examine further work with local law enforcement agencies to develop diversion programs for use very early with Iow level offenders. The Chair called for public comment. J. Ares had questions regarding the potential for civil disobedience issues in the near future. Mr. Ares suggested that the Council could have presentations by federal agencies, the National Guard and others to prepare for this event. Vice-Chair Hart agreed to meet with Mr. Ares to explore his issues further and to report back to the Council. Chair Poppen announced that the next meeting would be February 12~' at 4:30 p.m. He adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING 4/23/98 In attendance: Doug Poppen, Chair, Terry Hart, Vice-Chair, Ris Bradshaw, Donna Peterson, staff. Those present reviewed the compilation of the survey results. It was noted that even with a second mailing request, return the surveys was poor. Much discussion centered on the role of criminal justice agencies in prevention. Consensus was reached that the role of these agencies is not early prevention, but prevention of recidivism. The requests for furore presentations were also discussed. It was agreed that presentations would be acceptable providing that the experts used were carefully selected. It was also noted that most nationally known experts would require a speaking fee or minimally, travel and lodging expenses. As the CCPSCC has no budget, this would not be possible. Based on survey responses for future work of the CCPSCC, SheriffBradshaw noted his support for community mapping. He also noted that the definition of community policing is changing all the time. Vice-Chair Hart stated his belief that the council should focus on a criminal justice facility, in particular, juvenile holding space for short-term detention and juvenile diversion programs. Mental Health needs were also discussed as a priority. The planning group decided to bring a list of issues to the full CCPSCC for discussion with the goal of selecting 3 or 4 for prioritization over the next year. The list for discussion is as follows: Mental health issues with the criminal justice system. Community mapping. Facilities needs within the overall effort by the county to plan for facilities countywide. Presentations by criminal justice experts, including Victims' Assistance. Study/develop a plan for local jurisdictions (communities) involvement with Iow risk minor offenders. How to get judges more involved in needed changes or improvements of the system. It was then decided to hold the next CCPSCC meeting in May. 1) Are there presentations that you would like to have made to the Council? Would like presentations by experts in criminal justice/sociology who have documented evidence of programs that actually reduce the incidence of crime. Would like brief reports from each main agency affected by CCPSCC as to whether coordination has improved since the inception of CCPSCC. If so, how? If not, why not? Victims' Assistance would like to do a VAD/video presentation to the council. Community Policing - results from Milwaukie federal grant; other communities' efforts; Clackamas applications for state and federal grants in 1998. Oregon Court reform (Vision 2020)-progress in Clackamas County and statewide. Over- representation of Minorities summit report - each discipline represented at the summit committed to pursuing certain changes. How is Clackamas County advancing in those areas of change? More judicial input regarding justice system. Are we just a treadmill? 2) If so, ~vhat agencies/organizations would you like to make presentations and what topics would you like them to address? Experts in criminal justice/sociology: Alfred Blumstein, Carnegie-Mellon University. 3) Are there topics that we have covered that you would like to revisit? If so, which? Would like to hear more on data collection and "success" rates in working with probationers and parolees. No. Would like follow-up on "benchmarking" to see if the system actually works. How are agencies doing on juvenile crime prevention? Do we have data to tell? Collaboration between adult corrections, juvenile corrections and juvenile diversion. This is one commitment from the Summit, but Clackamas County is pursuing other collaborations, such as having parole officers attend high-risk 6) Please provide your comments on the work of the CCPSCC to date. Are there issues we could handle differently? Is the Council meeting your original expectations of the work for the group? It seems we have spent a lot of time doing administrative things to comply with state requirements, but not a lot of time looking at the big picture. What are our goals for reducing crime, and what kinds of crime are we concerned about? Does it make sense to do this at a county level when we are just an arbitrary division of the larger metropolitan area? Are there institutions (e.g., historic and invented "rights") that prevent us from effectively dealing with crime? I think we've done pretty well. I'd like to see a little better attendance at full CCPSCC meetings. Also, Jono's subcommittee appears defunct now that Jono's gone. Is it? I personally have been impressed with the work of the CCPSCC. The group has both completed the required work and advanced the county agenda especially that of collaboration. From what I've heard from other counties, Clackamas has devoted more energy than normal to juvenile issues. So far, so good but a lot of untapped potential for policy and new directions needs to be pursued. ¥~F~ ~ "a Cl:45F'li [~('C ~ACILiTIEL-, I,I"N P.1 3 Prison Siting Reviews Summary of Issues for Metro Area 06 Mamh 1997 Note: All sites lack sufficient detail to identify all of the potential improvements needed. The ~mprovements that are shown below may not be all of the improvements actually needed. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) should be done on every selected site to determine actually needed improvements. Costs shown are rough estimates only. Actual costs may be double or even triple. Right-of-way costs are not included in these estimates because there are too many unknowns. Postdt~ Fax Note 7671 / - brnetro2 04 March, 1997 Page 1 Sandy SmeJkal Site Medium Security Complex or Women's Prison intake Center Complex S_rou,.r).d Transportation Issues This site is located about three miles east of Sandy in Clackamas County. The site is on a high ridge less than a mile from Hwy 26 via Cherryville Read and Baty Road. Both roads are paved, PdmanJ access to the site would be from Baty Road. Secondary access would be from Cherryville Road. The following obvious possible improvement issues have been identified to the connecting transportation system. Additional issues could be determined in a traffic impact study, Transportation impacts could range from slight to significant if supersiting were not in place; based on an assessment of the current transportation facilities serving ti~is site, ODOT would likely have goal 12 grounds for appealing any land use actions involving the site. This of course would be avoided if current transportation plans could be amended to provide for adequate facilities Introduction of a pdson with a moderate trip generation rate may create a need for an interchange ODOT should have considerable concern about a prison at this location without some financial mechanism to grade separate the access to Highway 26. Yhe priaon site will increase traffic flows through Sandy, The Sandy TSP held the line for a Bypass in Sandy to accommodate unanticipated traffic flows on the couplet through Sandy. The Sandy TSP recognizes the eeed for developing parallel alte~ native streets in Sandy fo relieve Highway 26 traffic flows and accommodate local traffic flows. 1 ~ miles of Cherryville Road from Hwy 26 to Baty Road would need to be repaved and widened. 0.4 miles of Baty Road between Hwy 26 and Cherryville Road would need to widened. 0,4 miles of Baty Road between Cherryville Road and the proposed site would need to be reconstructed and widened. Current road is only 16 feet wide and is in yew poor condition, A left turn refuge would need to be built on Cherryvilfe Road at the west intersection of Chernyville Road and Baty Road because of zero sight distance. The east intersection of Cherryville Road and Baty Road has zero sight distance on Baty Road. Left turns from Baty Road are not safe. The two intersections of Baty road with Cnerryville road may have to be maligned into one intersection, Chore/villa Road may have to slightly realigned at the Baty Road intersection, We estimate that this facility ~utd generate between 2,000-3,000 ADT, ODOT requires developers to hire a consultant to perform a traffic impact study when site generated trips exceed 400 ADT, If this site is selected, DOC should hire a consultant to perform a traffic impact study to identify any improvement needs on the road system within the impacted area. We recommend that programs be considered for car pools, van pools, etc, to help attract good employees and to reouce impacts on the roadways. Aeronautics issues No anticipated aviation impact. additional information or questions please contact the following: Ieo Huff, Regior'~ 1, 6etsy Johnson, Aeronautics, Von Hemmert, Transpodation Planning Analysis Unit, (503) 731-8228 (503) 388-8689 ext. (503) 986-4103, b~etr¢2 04 March, 1997 Page 13 Sandy- Smejkal Site (Medium Security) Issues / Improvements / Needs t Aeronautics Issues Rough Cost Range (Actual costs may be much higher) - NO anticipated aviation impact. Ground Transportation Issues Site will probably generate at least 2,000-3.000 ADT · if supersiting were not in place; based on an assessment of the current transportation facilities sen,,;ng this site, ODOT would likely have goal 12 grounds for appealin9 any land use actions involving the site. This of course would be avoided if current transportation plans could be amended to provide for adequate facilities · Prison site with a moderate trip generation rate may contribute to the need for an interchange. · The prison site wiI! increase traffic flows tllrough Sandy. · The Sandy TSP held the line for a Bypass in Sandy to accommodate unanticipated traffic flows on the couplet through sandy. · The Sandy TSP recognizes the need for developing parallel alternative streets in Sandy to relieve Highway 26 traffic flows and accommodate local traffic flows. 1 ~ miles of Cherryville Road from Hwy 26 to Baty Road would need to be repaved and widened. 0.4 rniles of Baty Road between Hwy 26 and Cherryville Road would need to be widened · 0.4 miles of Baty Road between Cherryville Road and the proposed site would need to be reconstructed. · Left turn refuge at Baty Road on Cherryville Road Both intersections of Baty Road with Cherryville have zero sight distance. Turns are not safe. Possible realignment/combination of Baty Road intersections with Cherryville Road. · Possible realignment of Cherryville Road at the Baty Road intersection. · Traffic Impact Stud), completed I~¥ DOC Total $500,000 to $5,000,000 $650,000- $750,000 $240,000- $270,000 $240,000- $270,000 8150,000-$250,000 $400,000- $800,000 $200,000-$400,000 $25,000- $40,000 __. $ :2,405,000 - $ 7~580,000 bmftre2 04 March. 1997 Page 4 3. Sandy- Smejkal Site (Medium Security) Issues/' Improvements/'~eeds Rough Cost Range (Actual costs may be much higher) Aeronautics Issues · No anticipated aviation impact. Ground Transportation Issues · Site will probably generate at least 2,000-3,000 ADT · If supersiting were not in place; based on an assessment of the current transportation facilities serving this site, ODOT would likely have goal 12 grounds for appealing any land use actions involving the site. This of course wourd be avoided if current transpodation plans could be amended to provide for adequate facilities · Prison site with a moderate trip generation rate may contribute $500,000 to $5,000,000 to the need for an interchange. · The prison site will increase traffic flows through Sandy. · The Sandy TSP held the line for a Bypass in Sandy to accommodate unanticipated traffic flows on the couplet through sandy. · The Sandy TSP recognizes the need for developing parallel alternative streets in Sandy to relieve Highway 26 traffic flows and accommodate local traffic flows. · 1.1 miles of Cherryville Road from Hwy 26 to Baty Road would $650,000 - $750,000 need to be repaved and widened. · 0.4 miles of Baty Road between Hwy 26 and Cherryville Road $240,000 - $270,000 would need to be widened. · 0.4 miles of Baty Road between Cherryville Road and the $240,000 - $270,000 proposed site would need to be reconstructed. · Left turn refuge at Baty Road on Cherryville Road $150,000 - $250,000 · Both intersections of Baty Road with Cherryville have zero sight distance. Turns are not safe. · Possible realignment/combination of Baty Road intersections $400,000 - $600,000 with Cherryville Road. · Possible realignment of Cherryville Road at the Baty Road $200,000 - $400,000 intersection. · Traffic Impact Study completed by DOC $25,000 - $40,000 Total $ 2,405,000 - $ 7,580,000 bmetro2 04 March, 1997 Page 4 PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT Oregon Department of Corrections Tri-County Prison Siting Information Meeting Monday, March 24, 1997 7:00 p.m. Rex Putnam High School Gymnasium 4950 SE Roethe Road Milwaukie, OR 97222 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the eight potential Tri-County sites for a womens' prison and intake center. Status of the process and progress in the evaluation of properties will be discussed. Anyone who has an interest in knowing about the sites is encouraged to attend. For additional information call Christine Rodriguez at (503) 373-1572 extension 7107. Attachments: Current Potential Sites Oregon Department of Corrections POTENTIAL TRI-COUNTY SITES Women's Prison/Intake Center February 26, 1997 Evaluation Disposition Site Name/ Cty Ac Map Owner Comments Valid Additional Not Location Evaluation Appropriate Dammasch CK 190 State of Oregon Nominated Site X Seaport Site WA 205 Metro 9 Richard Bunch Site meets the mandatory criteria. Recently sold for X (N. of Hwy. 26) & and SeaPort $10.5 million. Substation at NE comer across tracks Level I SW 28 Invest~nents Additional assessment required Owner contacted for ordered Hillsboro pernut of entry to do Level II. Smejkal Site CK 357 CK-SD-1 James Smejkal Evaluation has indicated that the footprint can fi! on X the relatively flatter portion in the canter. Earth v411 Level I and Il Near Sandy need to be moved. There are steep slopes on all sldes, ordered which would make good natural buffers. Permit of entry granted. Rood Bridge Site WA 142 WA-HS-1 National Golf This appears to be a suitable site. There are no flood X Courses, Inc. plain issues. Owner has offered property. Level I and Hillsboro urea Permit of antry granted. Level II ordered Butternut Orchard WA 160 WA-Safew Northwest Power transmission line cuts across 1/3 of site. Foot X Site 222 Properties print will fit. Permit of antry pending from owner. Level I ordered Hillsboro area Sharp Farm Site CK 177 SC- Safety Steve Coleman Adjacent to city limits of Mollala.. Traffic servicing X 12-A site must go through Mollala. Designated forest Level I Mollala preserve on south side of site. Vacant parcel buffers ordered. fi.om housing deveiopmant. May require major Level I~ property acquisition to obtaIn, pending permit to enter Tippett Orchard Site CK 200 CK-WS-3 Jim Tippet On Wilsonville Rd. Presently in an old walnut orchard X Wilsonville Rd at that has a blight. Permit of entry granted. Level I Grahams Ferry Rd. ordered Sauvie Island Site MT 300 MT-SM Individnal Ranch on Sanvie Island. Aerial photos of property X taken 2/24. Notes: Metro sites were identified by METRO and refer to map's ganemted by the M3ETRO data base SC and SW sites were identified by S.A.F.E.T.Y. (Safety Clackamas and Safety Washington) Other sites identified by 4-letter and 1 number codes were identified by IX)C consultants. (WA-HS-1) The consultants and DOC evaluated, to some level, over 180 sites. Many of the sites were not considered further because they did not meet mandatory criteria such as not in a flood plain, were not large enough or not having a configuration to support the planned facility. 10 January 1997 Scott Lazenby City Manager 39250 Pioneer Blvd Sandy, OR 97055 Ol on DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACILITIES DIVISION Subject: Identification of Sites for New Women's Prison/Intake Center Complex for the Oregon Department of Corrections Dear Scott Lazenby: On December 16, 1996 1 sent you a letter inviting you to the first of several regular meetings about Portland Metropolitan area new prison siting. That first meeting was held on Tuesday, Janumy 7, 1997. The agenda from this meeting is enclosed. At that meeting Director, Dave Cook stated the Department of Corrections' comrmtment to working with the th-county area to identify and evaluate potential sites for a women's prison and intake center. Also at the meeting Director Cook identified me as the point of contact for this process for the department. The second of these status meetings will be held on Thursday, January 16, 1997 starting at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held at the PGE Building in Oregon City at 209 Warner Milne Read. The third meeting will be held on Thursday, Janea~y 30, 1997 starting at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held at the Washington County Fairplex in Hillsboro at 872 NE 28th Avenue. Directions are attached for both meetings. These meetings are intended to provide information to interested parties on the progress of the siting process and the status of sites being considered. To date there are 35 sites being considered. The Dammaseh site will continue to be considered, as requested by the Governor. Additionally, Metro identified 34 potential sites for which some initial evaluation has been completed. A status listing of all sites being considered in the process will be distributed at each of these meetings. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Governor's Executive Order No. 9706 initiating the process for siting a women's prison and intake center complex in Clackamas, Multnomah, or Washington county. One of the key dates relates to the submission resolutions from communities to express their interest in a prison facility. With the earlier letter a copy of the law and the rule were included. The law provides for conununities to submit resolutions of interest within 30 days of the issuance of the governor's executive order. This resolution indicates to the Department of Corrections and the Corrections Facilities Siting Authority that a community is willing and interested in a facility being located in that community. The date for submission of those msolutioas is Wednesday, February 5, 1997. I look forward to seeing you or a representative at the next meeting on January 16, 1997. Please call me before then if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lisa B Strader Administrator Dave Cook, DOC Director Portland Metropolitan Area Prison Facility Siting Letter to Interested Parties 470 Lancaster Drive NE Salem, OR 97310 (503) 373-1572 FAX (503) 378-6536 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. EO - 97 - 06 CORRECTIONS FACILITIES SITIING ALFFHORITY WHEREAS: 1. The Legislative Assembly during the 1995 r~gular sessi°a Passed House Bill 2214, now codified at ORS 42.1.611, et seq: WI-IEREA$: 2. House Bill 2214 established the Corrections Facilities Siting Authority and the process for nominating and establishifig facilities. ORS 421.616 requires the Goveraor to initiat~ the c0rre6tioas faciLities siting process established ia thin act. IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: · · ' facilities siting process The Department of Corrections shall begin the correcaons set out in ORS 421.616 by nominating sttes for a women prison/intake ceater complex aad its furore expansion to be sited ia Claokamas, Mulmomah, or Washlngton county. The process for nom inatiag site~ by the Depamnent of Correotion.~ aad sel~dng and mn~ng sit~ by the Sitiag Authod~y,'~hal! take. ~o longer thau approximately 120 days from the hssuauce of thi~ Exec~ive Order. Datedthi.n ~ . day oflaxmary, 1997, gt Salem, OFegon~ SEERETARY OF' STATE Tri-County Siting Meeting 07 January 1997 Opening Remarks - Dave Cook Intent of this meeting DOC Contact Introductions Siting Update Proposed Facility New Siting Process Schedule Sites Dammasch "34 sites" others Law and Rule Meetings with Cities and Counties Informational Meetings Future Meetings 1/16/97 1/30/97 Questions & Answers JAN 09 99 4:55 FROM:PGE/O.C~ 503-650-1498 PAGE:O1 ~00 '~ NEW WOMEN'S MEDIUM FACILITY AND STAI'EViP~; ~TAKE FACILFF'Y Oregon Department of Corrections Tri-County Prison Siting Information Meeting Tuesday, March 18, 1997 7:00 p.m. Sauvie Island School Gymnasium 14445 NW Charleton Rd Portland, OR The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the eight potential Tri-County sites for a womens' prison and intake center. Status of the process and progress in the evaluation of properties will be discussed. Anyone who has an interest in knowing about the sites is encouraged to attend. For additional information call Christine Rodriguez at (503) 373-1572 extension 7107. Oregon Department of Corrections POTENTIAL TRI-COUNTY SITES Women's Prison/Intake Center February 27, 1997 Evaluation Disposition Site Name/ Cty Ac Map Owner Comments Valid Additional Not Location Evaluation Appropriate Dammasch CK 190 State of Oregon Nominated Site X Seaport Site WA 205 Metro 9 ILichard Bunch Site meets the mandatory criteria. Recently sold for X (N of Hwy 26) & and SeaPort $10.5 million. Substation at NE earner across tracks. Level I SW 28 Investments Additional assessment required. Owner contacted for ordered Hillsboro permit of entry to do Level ff. Smejkal Site CK 357 CK-SD- 1 James Smejkal Evaluation has Indicated that the footprint can fit on X the relatively flatter portion in the center. Earth will Level I and II Near Sandy need to be moved. There are steep slopes on all sides, ordered which would make good natural buffers. Permit of antry granted. Rood Bridge Site WA 142 WA-HS-1 National Golf This appears to be a suitable site. There are no flood X Courses, Inc. plain issues. Owner has offered property. Level I and Hillsboro area Permit of entry gnmted. Level II ordered Butternut Orchard WA 160 WA-Safety Northwest Power transmission line cuts across 1/3 of site. Foot X Site 222 Properties print will fit. Permit of ent~ pending from owner. Level I ordered Hillsborn area Sharp Farm Site CK 177 SC- Safety Steve Coleman Adjacent to city limits of Mollala.. Traffic servicing X 12-A site must go through Mollala. Designated forest Level I Mollala preserve on south side of site. Vacant parcel buffers ordered. from housing development. May require major Level II property acquisition to obtain, pending permit to enter Tippett Orchard Site CK 200 CK-WS-3 Jim Tippet On Wilsonville Rd. Presently in an old walnut orchard X Wilsonville Rd at that has a blight. Permit of ant~3~ granted. Level I Grahams Ferry Rd. ordered Sauvie Island Site MT 154 MT-SM Anderson Ranch on Sauvie Island. Aerial photos of property X Level I taken 2/24. ordered Metro sites were identified by METRO and refer to map's generated by the METRO data base SC and SW sites were identified by S.A.F.E.T.Y. (Safety Clackamas and Safety Washington) Other sites identified by 4-letter and 1 number codes were identified by DOC consultants. (WA-HS-1) The consultants and DOC evaluated, to some level, over 180 sites. Many of the sites were not considered further because they did not meet mandatory criteria such as not in a flood plain, were not large enough or not having a configuration to support the planned facility. CRITICAL DATE SCHEDULE (Site in Washington, Clackamas or Multhomah County) Januaw 7,1997 Issuance of Executive Order by Governor Kitzhaber. Process begins for Group I (Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah Counties). Januaw 7,1997 Opening meeting with Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah Counties. January 16 Tri-County update meeting. January 30 Tri-County update meeting. February 4 Resolution of Interest due from Tri-County communities February 6 30 day cutoff for submittingTri-County sites (preferred date) Resolutions of interest due from jurisdictions February 12 Tri-County update meeting February 21 45 day cutoff for submitting Tri-County sites (absolute final date to submit sites) February 26 Tri-County update meeting March 10 Tri-County update meeting Hillsboro March 18 Tri-County update meeting 7 p.m. Sauvielsland School 14445 Charton Rd. March 27-April 1 (tentative) Department of Corrections nominates sites April 23-26 Date range for public hearings and deliberations by the Siting Authority for Tri-County sites April 28 Deliberations by Siting Authority May 7 120t" day. Siting Authority submits Tri-County sites in ranked order to Governor May 22 Last day for governor to name site for Women's Prison and Intake Center Purpose of the meeting "Discuss site selections, the on-site and off-site improvements needed at each site and the site preferences of the local government." To discuss The process we are going through Where we are in the process The site in the Sandy area location infrastructure issues other issues community concerns Hearing schedule Conditions Anything else Schedule Nomination Hearings Conditions Between March 27 and April 1 (if site is nominated) April 24 7p.m. Pre meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. Location not yet secured Submitted not later than 10 days before the hearing (April 14 at 5 p.m.) Directions for submitting attached Future meetings Public meeting in the evening March 18 7 p.m. Sauvie Island School 14445 Charton Rd Community issues/concerns DOC issues/concerns PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT Oregon Department of Corrections · -' Tri-County Prison'-siting Information Meeting Monday, March 10, 1997 7:00 p.m. Washington County Fairplex Cloverleaf Building 872 NE 28th Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Tuesday, March 18, 1997 7:00 p.m. Milwaukie Center Parks & Recreation District 5440 SE Kellogg Creek Rd Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the eight potential Tri-County sites for a womens' prison and intake center. Status of the process and progress in the evaluation of properties will be discussed. Anyone who has an interest in knowing about the sites is encouraged to attend. For additional information call Christine Rodriguez at (503) 373-1572 extension 7107. Attachments: Current Potential Sites February 26, 1997 Location Dmrmlasch Hillsbero (N. of Hwy. 26 ) Seaport ~ [ Smejkal Site~ Map Metro 9 & SW 28 CK-SD- 1 Rood Bridge [ WA-HS - l Hillsboro area North of St. Mary's Hillsboro (Butterau[ If SC 222 Orchard) f Sharp Farm, / SC 12-A Mollala Wilsonville Rd at Grahams Ferry Rd CK-WS-3 Sauvie Island MT-SI-i POTENTIAL TRI-COUNTY SITES Evaluation State of Oregon Richard Bunchand SeaPortlnvestments James Smejkal National Golf Courses, Northwest Properties Steve Coleman Tippet Orcha[d Comments Nominated Site Site meets the mandatory criteria Recently sold for $10.5 mil ion. Substation at NE comer across tracks. Additional assessment required. Owner contacted for permit of antry to do Level H. Evaluation has indicated that the footprint can fit relatively flatter portion in the center. Earth w/Il need to be moved. There are steep slopes on all sides, which would make good natural buffers. This appears to be a suitable site. There are no flood plain issues. Owner has offered property Power transmission line cuts across 1/3 of site. Foot print will fit. Permit ofent~ pending from owner. Adjacent to city limits of Mollala. Previous evaluation 9/96, owners unwilling to sell at that time. Now has indicated willingness to sell. Tral'fic servicing site must go through Mollala. Designated forest preserve on south side of site. Vacant parcel buffers from housing development. May require major property acquisition to obtain. On Wilsonville Rd. Presently m an old Walnut orchard that has a blight. Owner wishes to sell. Valid X Ranch on Sauvie Island. Owner wishes to sell Aerial photos ofproporty taken 2/24. Notes: Metro sites were identified by METRO and rel~r to map's generated by the METRO data base SC and SW sites were identi~ed by S A F E.T.y (Safety Clackanas and Safety Waslfington) Other sites identified ' by 4 letter and 1 number codes were identified by DOC consultants. (WA-HS-1 is Washington Coantv, ltillsboro, Site 1 ). Ali sites that are assigned /'or full evaluation will be assigned a DOC code The consultants and DOC evaluated, to SOme level, 181 sites Man), of the sites were in flood plain. Others were parcels that ~cre not large enough or did not have Ibc correct configuration to support the planned facility Disposition Add Not Evaluatinr Appropriate X Level I ordered X Level I and ordered X Level I and Level L! ordered X Level I ordered X Level I ordered Level Fl pending anter X Level I ordered S'I'ATB OF' DEF~AFITMBN'I' OF MEMORANDUM February 21, 1997 (503) 373-1572 Ext 229 TO: Scott Lazenby FROM: ZaDean Auyer Facilities Siting Coordinator This is to confirm that representatives of the DI your staffand elected local officials on: )m'trnent of Correctinns will be meeting with you and March 10, Sandy City Hall 1 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is defined under ORS 421.618 as follows: "Prior to nornir~ting sites pursuant to ORS 421.616, the Department of Corrections shall hold a meeting or multiple meetings with the elected local government officials involved to discuss the site sele~ions, the on-site and off-site improvements needed at each site and the site preferences of the local governments." Clackamas County officials and your legislators have also been invited to this meeting. The Department expects to nominate sites for the women's prison complex and intake center on or about March 24. We will be discussing the heating to be held in your community and the conditions for siting the £acility when we meet. TRANSMIT CONFIR~4ATION _7ournal No, : 001 Rieceiver : 96687951 Transmi±ter : CITY OF Da~e : Feb 20,q7 13:33 T i me : ,31 ' 02 Mode : NORN [~scu,'r, ent : 02 Pages Pesult : 0 K REPORT :~ FEB 'id? ~'37 i i:36AH DOC FACILITIES DIV~q P.1, J To: Fax #: Re: Date: Pages: FA(SlHILE II CRITICAL DATE SCHEDULE (Site in Washington, Clackamas or Multhomah County) Januaw 7,1997 Issuance of Executive Order by Governor Kitzhaber. Process begins for Group I (Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah Counties). Januaw 7,1997 Opening meeting with Clackamas, Washington and · Multnomah Counties. Januaw 16 Tri-County update meeting. January 30 February 4 Tri-County update meeting. Resolution of Interest due from Tri-County communities February 6 30 day cutoff for submittingTri-County sites (preferred date) Resolutions of interest due from jurisdictions February 12 Tri-County update meeting 9a.m. Gresham City Hall Oregon Trail Room 1333 Eastman Pkw (223rd) February 21 45 day cutoff for submitting Tri-County sites (absolute final date to submit sites) February 26 Tri-County update meeting 2:30 p.m. Portland Community College ~ Sylvannia Campus College Center Bldg, Cedar Room 12000 SW 49th Ave Portland On or about March 25 Nominate Tri-County (Group I) sites by Department of Corrections April17-26 Date range for public hearings and deliberations by the Siting Authority for Tri-County sites. May 7 120~ day. Siting Authority submits Tri-County sites in ranked order to Governor May 22 Last day for governor to name site for Women's Prison and Intake Center To: Fax ~: Re: Date: Pages: '~ including this cover sheet. Salem, Orego~ gT~ 10 (503) 373-1 Fax: (533) 378-6536 /1 CRITICAL DATE SCHEDULE (Site in Washington, Clackamas or Multhomah County) January 7,1997 Issuance of Executive Order by Governor Kitzhaber. Process begins for Group I (Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah Counties). January 7,1997 Opening meeting with Clackamas, Washington and · Multnomah Counties. January 16 Tri-County update meeting. January 30 February 4 Tri-County update meeting. Resolution of Interest due from Tri-County communities February 6 30 day cutoff for submittingTri-County sites (preferred date) Resolutions of interest due from jurisdictions February 12 Tri-County update meeting 9a.m. Gresham City Hall Oregon Trail Room 1333 Eastman Pkw (223rd) February 21 45 day cutoff for submitting Tri-County sites (absolute final date to submit sites) February 26 Tri-County update meeting 2:30 p.m. Portland Community College - Sylvannia Campus College Center Bidg, Cedar Room 12000 SW 49th Ave Portland On or about March 25 Nominate Tri-County (Group I) sites by Department of Corrections April17-26 Date range for public hearings and deliberations by the Siting Authority for Tri-County sites. May 7 120"* day. Siting Authority submits Tri-County sites in ranked order to Governor May 22 Last day for governor to name site for Women's Prison and Intake Center OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACI~ITIIgS DM$ION 1793 13TEl ST S.E. SALEM, OR 97302 MAI~I~G- ADDRESS: 257.5 ClgbI~ER STN. E. $/kL,~E.M, ON 97310 PHONE (503) 373-1572 FAX 503-37~ FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: '.MESSAGE or COIvLM]ENTS: VERIFICATION PHONE: (503)373-1572 RETURN FAX NUMBER: (503)378-6536 ~c~ d, '97 0i:OS~rl £,,,_ rHLI~ I~c, · MEET[NC- NOTES TELEPHONE CONV~R~ATiON MEMORANDUM cc: ~.~r~ mc- ] 3Olin GRAI-[A,~.I Semder Senate Standing Committee Membership Agriculture and Natural Resources 8ob Kmtigh, Ct',air Bill Fisher, Vice-Chair Bill D,.w er Ted Femoli Gary George Veral Tarno Thomas Wilde Livabilit5 Ted Ferrioli, Chair Bob Kintigh, Vice-Chair Kate Brown Ginny Burdick Eileen Qumb Parks Business, Law and Government Nell B~ant. Chair Randy Miller, Vice-Chair Kate Brown Gene De'er Randy Leonard David Nelson Crime and Correction~)p?ol,I Shirley Stuil, Chair '" O~~°' ]~i 0 Jeannette Hamby, Vic~-Cbair Avei Gordly Eiieen Qumb Veral Tamo Cliff Tro~ Education Tom Hartung, Chair Marylin Shannon, Vice-Chair Ken Baker Susan Castillo Gary George Cliff Trow Gao' George, Chair Bill Dwyer. Vice-Chair Joan Dukes Veral Tarno Ken Baker, Chair Neil Bryant, Vice-Chair Joan Dukes "ll-lq k' Tom Hartung q ~g'}q ~Randy Leonard RuleS and Elections Randy Miller, Chair Gene Derfler, Vice-Chair Neil Bryant Randy Leonard Cliff Trow Special Committee on Conduct Shirley Stull, Chair Ken Baker Joan Dukes Randy Leonard Health and Human Services Trade and Economic Development Bill Fisher, Chair Jeannette Hamby, Vice-Chair Susan Castillo Lenn I-Iannon Marylin Shannon Thomas Wilde John Lim, Chair .loan Dukes, Vice-Chair gill Fisher Gary George Avel Gordly VeraI Tamo Technology (Joint) David Nelson, Co-Chair Ginny Burdick, Co-Vice Chair Bill Dwyer Jeannette Hamby sb0541g.int at gopher.leg.state.or.us (Gopher) - Microsoft Intemet Explorer Page 1 of 4 69th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--1997 Regular Session NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an amended section zs new. Matter within { - braces and minus signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within { * braces and plus signs + } . LC 1873 Senate Bill 541 Sponsored by Senator MILLER, Representative ADAMS; Senators CASTILLO, DWYER, GEORGE, GORDLY, HANNON, HARTUNG, QUTUB, SHANNON, STULL, TARNO, TIM~S, WILDE, YIH, Representatives BOWMAN, BRIAN, CARPENTER, HILL, JOSI, KRUSE, LOKAN, MINNIS, OAKLEY, ROBERTS, SCHRADER, SHIELDS, SIbglONS, SUNSERI SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Prohibits placement of residential correctional facility within three miles of certain schools or within two miles of certain residential areas. Requires specific findings for certain siting decisions of Department of Corrections. Declares emergency, effective on passage. A BILL FOR AN ACT Friday, March 14, 1997 2:48 PM sb0541g.int at gopher.leg.state.or.us (Gopher) - Microsoft Internet Explorer Relating to corrections facilities siting; creating new provisions; amending ORS 421.623; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. { + Section 2 of this Act is added to and made a part of ORS 421.611 to 421.630. + } SECTION 2. { + Notwithstanding the criteria adopted under ORS 421.614 and 421.616 (1), unless a local jurisdiction demonstrates an interest in having a site selected as provided in ORS 421.623 (6), the Department of Corrections shall not nominate a site for siting a residential correctional facility if all or part of the site is: (1) Within three miles of an elementary or secondary school; or (2) Within two miles of a residential area containing more than six dwelling units per acre. + } SECTION 3. ORS 421.623 is amended to read: 421.623. (1) Within 30 days after nomination of sites as set forth in ORS 421.616, the Corrections Facilities Siting Authority shall hold a hearing within the region where each nominated site is located to receive Department of Corrections, local government, neighborhood, law enforcement and public testimony regarding the sites nominated and conditions proposed therefor. (2) Not later than 10 days before the hearing held by the authority as required by subsection (1) of this section, any affected local government or any person may submit proposed conditions to the authority. Each proposed condition shall: (a) Be stated separately; (b) Be in writing; (c) Identify the site to which the condition, if approved, would attach; (d) Be specific; (e) Directly relate to any site or its proposed development, Page 2 of 4 Friday, March 14, 1997 2:48 PM sb0541g.int at gopher.leg.state, or.us (Gopher) - Microsoft Internet Explorer infrastructure, access thereto or physical condition on or in the immediate vicinity of such site; and (f) Be supported by a statement of the need or reasons therefore. !3) Within 45 days after nomination of the sites as set forth in ORS 421.616, the authority shall select and rank in order of preference such sites as the Governor deems necessary or advisable for the construction and operation of corrections facilities, and specify site development conditions for each site, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole and supported by findings, which findings shall address only: (a) The criteria specified by the department pursuant to ORS 421.614 and in ORS 421.616. (b) The reasons for not adopting any of the proposed conditions that were submitted in accordance with subsection (2) of this section for the selected sites. (4) If one or more of the nominated sites meets the mandatory criteria established by the department pursuant to ORS 421.614, the local Jurisdiction demonstrates interest as described in subsection { - (5) - } { + (6) + } of this section, and the authority selects a site that has not demonstrated interest as described under subsection { - (5) - } { + (6) + } of this section, the authority shall make findings that demonstrate why it selected the site in which the local jurisdiction did not demonstrate interest. { + (5) If the authority selects a site within a local jurisdiction that has not demonstrated interest or has demonstrated opposition as described in subsection (6) of this section, the authority shall adopt specific findings sufficient to support a compelling interest of the state in locating the facility at the site. + } Page 3 of 4 Friday, March 14, 1997 2:48 PM sb0541gint at gopher.legstate.or, us (Gopher) - Microsoft Internet Explorer { (5) } { + (6) + } A local jurisdiction may demonstrate interest { + or opposition + } by presenting to the Department of Corrections a resolution that sets forth such interest { + or opposition + ] no later than 30 days from issuance of an executive order under ORS 421.616. SECTION 4. { + This Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act takes effect on its passage. + } Page 4 of 4 Friday, March 14, 1997 2:48 PM [nticipated Staffing for Intake Center and Women's Complex The Intake Center and Women's Prison Complex planned for Site 1 will be staffed differently than the men's medium complexes. The intake center is an evaluation center requiring a larger number of professional employees (doctors, counselors and treatment services providers). The staffing level is anticipated to be higher and the average salary range higher, thus the payroll will be larger. Job Employees Annual Payroll Management 9 Cleric, al 22 Support trades (physical plant 48 management) Professional 42 Chaplains 5 Health Services 81 Mental Health Services 21 ' (counseling, treatment) Security 400 TOTAL 628 $18.8 million *These figures are estimates and may vary when the institution is actually constructed ¢EALTH SERVICES TO INMATES Emergencies: DOC staff trained as First Responders to AH Level A. Health care staff trained to AH Level C. Medical staff will not always be on duty at the work camp's. The correctional facilities wilJ access the local emergency services network in the oommur~ity anytime the level of services exceeds the resources at the facility. Services I DOC Staff J Contract Provi(ler 1600 bed facility 24-hours a day, seven DOC employees Laboratory, pharmacy days a week supply and radiology are ambulatory medical Anticipated staffing: contracted to statewide dental Physician - .5 TO 1 suppliers mental health FTE Level of service coincides Full-time nurse with the pnoritized list of practitioner (NP) or diagnoses and [re~tm~nt physician's ~ist~nt comprising the Oregon (PA) Health Plan. Round- the- clock A level of infirmary care RN's (Usually 5-6 will be provided on a level required) similar to home health care. Dentist - 1.5 FTE Emergency medical 2 dental assistants response is American Heart Association Level C Clerical, medical records, pharmacist, pharmacy tach, radiology tach, medical stores clerk JUL 1~ '96 09:01AM DOC. RESEARCH & EVAL ~.2/~ DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONE Offenders on 7/1/96 by County of Supervision/Conviction Parole/Pest-Prison Institutio~ Supervision Probation Tota~ Baker 26 0.3% 30 0.3% 90 0,5% 14~ 0.4% I~enton 74 0.9% 89 0,9% 299 1.6% 462 1 `2% Clackamas 383 4,6% 430 4.3% 990 5.2% 1,803 4.8% Clatsop 59 0.7% 67 0,7% 165 1_0% 311 0.8% Columbia 75 0.9% 84 0.8% 201 1.0% 360 1.0% Coos 192 2,3% 227 2,3% 460 2.4% 879 2.3% Crook 41 0.5% 43 0.4% 107 0.6% 191 0.$% Curry 37 8.4% 44 0.4% 185 1.0% 266 0.7% Oesc~riute~ 160 1.9% 2.59 2,6% 579 3.0% 998 2.7% Douglas 199 2.4% 210 2,1% 582 3.0% 991 2.6% Grant 4 0.0% 0.0% 1 0,0% 5, 0.0% Hamey 17 0,2% 29 0.3% 83 0,4% 129 0.3% Hoo(I River 22 0.3% 21 0.2% 111 0.6% 154 0.4% dac.~son 334 4.0% 348 3.5% 1,083 5.6% 1,765 4.7% Jefferson 33 0.4% 51 0.5% 127 0.7% 211 0.6% Josephine 222 2,7% 185 1.8% 526 2,7% 933 2.5% Klamath 122 1.5% 165 1.6% 605 3,1% 892 2.4% Lake 16 0.2% 12 0.1% 60 0.3% 88 0,2% Lane 772 9.2% 928 9.2% 1,536 8.0% 3,236 8.6% Lincoln 122 1,5% 151 t.5% 328 1.7% 601 1.6% LInn 330 3,9% 364 3.6% 804 4,2% 1,4~8 Malheur 126 1,5% 99 1,0% 225 12% 450 Marion 867 10.4% 1,057 10,$% 1,3o8 6.8% 3,2,:~2 8,6% Morrow 6 0,1% 0,0% 0.0% 6 0,0% Multnomah 2,784 33.3% 3,841 38,2% 5,382 28,0% 12,008 31.9% Out of State 127 1.5% 0.0% 0,0% t27 0 Polk 90 1,1% 116 12% 300 1,6% 506 1.3% Tillamook 55 0,7% 59 0_6% 1 22 0.6% 236 0.6% Umatilla 148 1.8% 160 1.6% 50,t 2.6% 812 2,2% Union 41 0,5% 44 0.4% 17/ 0.9% 262 0.7% Unknown 181 2`2% 160 1.5% 0.0% 331 0,9% Wallowa 3 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 3 0.0% Waste 71 0.8% 65 0,7% 183 1 0% 322 0.9% Washington 623 6.3% $57 5,5% 1,631 8.5% 2,71 t 7,2% Wheeler 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% Yamhill 105 1.3% 167 1.7~ 449 2.3% 721 1.9% Total 8,368 100.0% I0,055 100.0% 19,223 100,0% 37,§48 100,0% No~e! County I~ defin~l as ,~ane/of eupen4~en fox' parole ~ pmb~an, e~d =eunty of la~ super,~Pt~ or ~envic~fl ~r ~alJiut.b~. Un,norm ~n~y [nclude~ ml~ist~g data for inst~).e, and fll~ I;~4~q ng a ~m~ou~r DOC RESEARCH; LN/FACILfI~XL$ FROM : ELESG] / CRS! PHCNE NO. : 541 S93 396.5 3ar,. 21 1997 12:$6PM po. · 'L~..~'O~ l. ~'~O. - PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT - MEDIUM SECURITY PRISON PROPOS~D SITE iV CK-SD-I ~SMF~IKAL" CLACKAMAS COUNTY DOES THIS SITE MEET THE MANDATORY STATE REQUIREMENTS? YES?__ UNCERTAIN, X. NO? __ Reason for disqualification: This site requires ~rther evaluation to determine whether fl~¢ required footprint can be placed on th,' relatively flatter portion in the center. There are steep slopes on all ~ides, which would make good natural buffers, so it may be possible to utilize smaller acreage for the actual facility, Section 15 (part) T 2S R 5E W,M. For individual tax lots, refer to auached legal description from 7'icor Title Insurance. fiar. e, ag~ ±357,27 acres. Additional acreage available h~ adjacefft tax lots to accommodate footprint if necessary. Owner wants to retain acreage not needed by DOC. Ztzuigg: Owner believes zoning is F2 (fom~ use), but this needs to be confirmed with County Planning. Loa:atlio~: Approximately 3 miles E/NB of Sandy city limits. About 1,5 miles east of Sandy River Airport. Sandy River forrrk~ north border of property, but not of potential site. Deicxiplioa~rlyA~;ation: The site comprises all of a high ridge belween the Sandy River and Badger Creek. There is a relatively flat area at the top &the ridge which is the only potential site for a medium security prison, if it is large enough, The remainder of the property slopes steeply to the Sandy River and Badger Creek on the ~ortl~, west, and south. Most ofth~ site h~s been logged and lhere are several sheds and other removable buildings left over from the loggh~g operations. There ia paved road access fi:om U.S. Itwy, 26 to the ea-,;t side ofihe sitt.', ~ia several rural marls. Baty Road is the only one identified on a map. There is also access to the west aide of the site via several paved and dirt roads from the vicinity &the Sturdy River Airpc,rt. There am locked gates at both accesses and any visits to the site will rgquire being escorted by the ovmer of the property. O3ynership: The principal owner ofmcord is James A, Smejkal, who offered this site to the DOC mid a~orted the Elesco representative on 'die site visit. He indicated that them is another individual with an unrecorded interest in the property. See "Contact" for address and telephone. Availability.and cost: The site is represented ~ being available, although no cost has been given. Mr, Smejkal inquired about what the DOC was willing to pay but no estimates were.offered, F~CM : ELESCE ,' CAS[ PHONE NO, : 542. S~'z, ~9~~, ,,Tan. 21 1997 12:57PM P3 SITE #CK-SD~I SMEJKAI, ]:load Plain or other evident dcwlopment constraints: The usable portion of the site is about 300 feet above the Sandy River and out of thc floodplain. There are no apparent wetlands on thc site, although it will probably require investigation for vegetation and habitat issues. Depending on how much of the site would be used, there may also be geotcehnieal issues such as stability of thc soils on the steep slopes. An adequate topographic, al map had not been obtained at tho time this PSA was wri~len, so it has not been determined whether the site is suitable for the proposed use. When the topographical contours are available, it is recommended ~hat the architect make the determination on whether or not this site should be furth~ considered. If it is suitable, the~e are some strengths mud weakness that apply to this site: Total isolation with no neighboring u~cs that would conflict with a prison facility. Natural buffers on all sides, The private land on fl~e east is in tbrest use. Underground electric power and telephone lines are on the site in anticipation of futura development into large lots. Topography may prevent development Circuitous road access; will probably ri:quire extensive new road improvements U~ue~t~iu ],ur, wat~ eJ~d sewer can be provided, although site is within 3 miles o£ City of Sandy (Note: Required to visit ~te and obtain access through locked gates) James A. Smejkal 42142 NW Palace Drive Banks, OR 97106 Ph. 503 / 324 - 4006 Fax. 503/324-4006 Cell. 503 / Tgi - 8601 Mr Smeikal also owns s ranch at Wallowa. lfm~available at the above numbers, try: 541/8 $6-g9~15 Facts a out the Department of Corrections Mission Budget 'q'he mission of the Oregon Department of Corrections is to reduce the risk of criminal conduct, in partnership with com- munities, by employing a continuum of community supervi- sion, incarceration, sanctions and services to manage offender behavior." Employees November1,1996 152 temporary employees (78 security) 1054 non-security staff 1302 security staff 2508 total employees Diversity Profile of Full Time Employees March 31, 1996 Female Minority Disabled Overall: 30% 10.3% 1.5%* Upper Management: 30% 7.1% n/a Security: 17.6% 11.6% n/a Security Management: 12,5% 16.6% n/a *Most disabted applicants are only eligible for non-security positions which account for approximately half of the work force 1995-1997 Biennium $508.7 million: operating expenses $277.5 million; construction $786.2 million: total Legislatively approved budget Cost per Day 1995-1997 Biennium: In-State Out-of-State All Inmates $53.73 $56.61 Female Inmates $67.59 $69.76 Executive Management Team Director: David S. Cook, (503)945-0920 Deputy Director: Benjamin de Haan, (503)945-0920 Director, Public Affairs: Jim Lockwood, (503)945-0920 Assistant Director, Community Corrections: Scott Taylor, (503)945-9061 Assistant Director, Human Resoumes: Karen Roach, (503)945-9028 Assistant Director, Institutions: Al Chandler, (503)945-0950 Assistant Director, inspections: Les Dolecal, (503)945-0930 Assistant Director, Business and Finance: Sue Acuff, (503)945-9006 Assistant Director, Information Systems: Jean Hill, (503)945-0966 Assistant Director, Correctional Programs: Steve Ickes, (503)945-8877 Administrator, Inmate Work Programs: Michael Taaffe, (503)378-3884 Assistant to the Director: Sandy Salter, (503)945-0920 Significant Events 1995-1997 Biennium July 10, 1995 David S. Cook becomes director. August 1995 648 bed to 2998 bed expansion of Snake River Correctional Institution begins. August 1995 DOC begins process of implementing SB 1145, major legisla- tion restructuring community corrections. September 1995 First group of inmates transported to out-of-state rental beds to address in-state ovemrowding. January 1996 The Legislature, in special session, approves funding for coun- ty jail construction projects as part of the implementation of SB1145, the Community Corrections Act of 1995. July 1996 The process to launch Oregon's largest prison expansion begins. September 6, 1996 Douglas Franklin Wright executed by lethal injection at Oregon State Penitentiary; Oregon's first execution in 34 years. December 1996 Oregon Attorney General issues opinion ordering redistribution of inmate wages which precludes the DOC from paying inmates directly. New Pedormance Recognition and Awards System developed to allow inmates to earn cash awards for program and work attendance as well as appropriate conduct. December 1996 Governor Kitzhaber asked to select seven sites for five new medium security and two new minimum security prisons as well as approving expansion of several existing minimum secu- rity facilities. Governor defers decision on Medford, Eugene and Portland metro sites and reopens search in those areas. January 1997 Implementation date of SBl145. Counties operate their own community corrections activities and keep custody of all offenders sentenced to 12 months or less in prison. Ouick Facts about Oregon Offenders and Institutions Inmates January 2, 1997 Inmates in physical custody of ODOC: 7,338 inmates in Rental Beds: 1,119 Inmates on Work Release: 5 Youth Authority inmates in DOC Custody: 9 Court, Hospital, etc.: 89 Total Inmate Population: 8,560 Offenders Supervised in the Community November 1, 1996 Probation 19,200 Parole/Post-Prison Supervision 10,228 Prison Population Forecast October 1, 1996 July 1997 8,619 July 1999 9,752 July 2001 12,801 July 2003 15,128 July 2005 16,900 July 2006 17,752 Inmate Work Program Status December 14, 1996: % eligible inmates working/training full time: 53% % eligible inmates working/training part time: 29% Out-of-State Rental Beds January 2, 1997 Bannock County, Idaho 80 Denton County, Texas 188 ?lorence, Arizona 760 Total Inmates Out-of-State 1,028 Demographics of Offenders January 1, 1997 PROBATION PRISON PAROLE Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent GENDER Women 4516 23.5% 535 6.3% 1159 11.3% Men 14691 76.5% 7925 93.7% 9122 88.7% TOTAL 19207 100% 84~0 100% 10281 100% RACE Asian 165 0.9% 83 1.0% 71 0.7% Black 1111 5.8% 1035 12.2% 1320 12.8% Hispanic 920 4.8% 860 10.2% 858 8.3% Indian 226 1.2% 164 1.9% 185 1.8% White 16785 87.4% 6318 74.7% 7847 76.3% AGE 30 & Under 9134 47.6% 3364 39.8% 3843 37.4% 31-45 8.330 43.4% 3951 46.7% 5257 51.1% 46 & Over 1740 9.1% 1145 13.5% 1181 11.5% CR~ME TYPE Person 3849 20.0% 5685 69.1% 3505 38.5% Property 5822 30.3°/° 1276 15.5% 2858 31.4% S~atute 9535 49.6% 1265 15.4% 2745 30,1% Institutions January 2, 1997 Columbia River Correctional Institution (CRCl) Michael A. McGee, Superintendent 9111 NE Sunderland Ave., Portland 97211-1799; 503-280-6646; Fax: 503-280-6012 Inmates: 461 Budget: $14,123,460 Custody Level: Minimum Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution (EOCl) George H. Baldwin, Jr., Superintendent 2500 Westgate, Pendleton 97801-9699; 541-276-0700; Fax 541-276-1841 Inmates: 1451 Budget: $41,340,915 Custody Level: Medium Mill Creek Correctional Facility (MCCF) Robert Schiedler, Superintendent 5465 Turner Rd. SE, Salem 97301-9400; 503-378-5807; Fax: 503-378-8235 Inmates: 299 Budget $4,879,049 Custody Level: Minimum Oregon Corrections Intake Center (OClC) Larry Daniels. Manager 2206-B Kaen Road, Oregon City 97045-4090; 503-655-8420; Fax: 503-655-8450 Inmates: 217 Budget: $11,128,854 Custody Level: Medium Oregon State Correctional Institution (OSCI) Nick Armenakis, Superintendent 3405 Deer Park Drive SE, Salem 97310-9385; 503-373-0100; Fax: 503-378-8919 Inmates: 918 Budget: $26,837,505 Custody Level: Medium Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP) S, Frank Thompson, Superintendent 2606 State St., Salem 97310-0505; 503-378-2445; Fax: 503-378-3897 Inmates: 2028 Budget: $52,553,227 Custody Level: Maximum Oregon Women's Correctional Center (OWCC) Sonia Hoyt, Superintendent 2809 State Street, Salem, OR 97310-0500; 503-373-1907; Fax: 503-378-6392 Inmates: 180 Budget: $6,972,068 Custody Level: Medium Powder River Con'ectional Facility (PRCF) Debra Siater, Superintendent 3600 13th St., Baker City 97814-1346; 541-523-6680; Fax: 541-523-6678 Inmates: 171 Budget: $5,220,864 Custody Levek Minimum Santiam Correctional Institution (SCI) Robert Schiedler, Superintendent 4005 Aumsviile Hwy. SE, Salem 97301-9112; 503-378-5807; Fax: 503-378-8235 Inmates: 498 Budget: $12,627,281 Custody Level: Minimum Shutter Creek Correctional Institution (SCCl) Rill Beers, Superintendent 2000 Shutters Landing Rd., North Bend 97459-0303; 541-756-6666; Fax: 541-756-6888 Inmates: 251 Budget: $9,425,444 Custody Level: Minimum Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCl) Daniel P. Johnson, Superintendent 777 Stanton Blvd., Ontario 97914-0595; 541-881-5000; Fax: 541-881-5460 Inmates: 642 Budget: $26,902,457 Custody Level: Medium South Fork Forest Camp (SFFC) Michael A. McGee, Superintendent 48300 Wilson River Hwy., Tillamook 97141-9799; 503-842-2811; Fax 503-842-6572 Inmates: 130 Budget: $1,968,841 Custody Level: Minimum STATE OF OREGON Department of Corrections Related ACA Standards: ProcedureXt:~equirernent ~,~ × No Approved ~ -- Su~ect: MANDATORY AND DESIRABLE CRITERIA FOR SITING OREGON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES · OAR 291-073-0010 through OAR 291-073-0040 Rule #073 (Tab #54} Functional Unit(s) Affected: Planning & Budget David S. Cook, Director Effective Date: I 0 / i / 9 6 (Supersedes document dated: 7/8/96 ) AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 291-073-0010 (1) Authority: The authority for this rule is granted to the Director of the Department of Corrections in accordance with ORS 179.040, 421.614, 423.020, 423.030 and 423.075. (2) Purpose: The purpose of this rule is to establish mandatory and desirable criteria to be used in the nomination of sites for the construction and operation of Oregon correctional facilities. MANDATORY CRITERIA FOR ALL SITES 291-073-0020 The mandatory criteria for all sites (including medium security and minimum work camps) are listed below. They are not in any order of preference. (1) A proposed site must be available by purchase, condemnation, exchange or otherwise. (2) A proposed site must be of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the planned facility and its operation. (3) A proposed site must not be located in a 100-year flood plain as defined by a current FEMA map. (4) A proposed site must not be in a designated tsunami inundation zone. (5) A proposed site must have infrastructure available either on-site or such that RU 073 - Page 1 of 5 CD 709D (5/87) they can be provided and maintained cost effectively. This infrastructure includes: (a) Water for domestic use, fire protection, and irrigation; (b) Sanitary sewer collection and treatment; (c) Surface drainage and storm water collect~ion and disposal; and (d) Electricity, natural gas and/or oil or propane and telecommunications. (6) A proposed site must be served by road or highway system capable of supporting the planned facility. New roadway construction or roadway improvements (if required) must be able to be constructed at a reasonable cost and be ready at the time the facility is scheduled to be opened. DESIRABLE CRITERIA FOR MEDIUM SECURITY SITES 291-073-0030 The desirable criteria for medium security sites are listed below. They are not in any order of preference. An alternate means of meeting the intent of a criterion may be considered. (1) A proposed site which is available at little or no cost. (2) A proposed site which has 200-300 acres with 300 acres the preferred size. (3) A proposed site which is square or nearly so. (4) A proposed site which is relatively flat to minimize earthwork, foundation, construction costs and surface/subsurface drainage construction costs. (5) A proposed site which has natural buffers from surrounding land uses such as lakes, rivers, or ridges. (6) A proposed site which is not adjacent to a school, unless the parcel is buffered. (7) A proposed site which is not adjacent to a developed single-family or multi- family residential area, unless the parcel is buffered. (8) A proposed site in which the soils shall not be unduly prone to liquefaction due to seismic activity. (9) A proposed site with existing buildings that can be remodeled for utilization in new construction. RU 073 - Page 2 of 5 (10) A proposed site not subject to flooding from adjacent bodies of water, natural surface drainage or subsurface high water table.. (1 1 ) A proposed site not having an environmental, ecological, cultural or historic feature or condition which cannot be mitigated with remediation and/or health risk assessment prior to the beginning of site development. These conditions include, but may not be limited to, wetlands, historic or cultdrally significant sites, habitat for federally designated threatened and endangered species. (12) A proposed site that maximizes the use of present Department of Corrections facilities and considers such institution management issues as warehousing, inmate transportation, inmate management, etc. (13) A proposed site which has judicial, emergency and support services availability: (a) Fifteen minutes or less to local and/or state police, full service fire department, and emergency medical transport/care; (b) Sixty minutes or less to a National Guard unit; · (c) Forty-five minutes or less response time from licensed full service in-patient care hospital that accepts OMAP payment; (d) Forty-five minutes or less to educational institutions to provide GED, vo-tech programs for inmates; (e) Ninety minutes or less to higher education opportunities for staff development; (f) Adequate providers of support services to inmates, including counseling, religious, job training and education; and (g) Reasonable access to court facilities. (14) A proposed site that can demonstrate eminent opportunity for inmate work by either the public or private sector. Sites that have Oregon Enterprise Zone designations that may be of assistance in attracting a private partner using inmate labor. (1 5) A proposed site which is in close proximity to a population area from which a large number of inmates originate. (16) A proposed site in which the facility is perceived as beneficial by local jurisdiction and community. (17) A proposed site which is served by interstate and/or major arterial roadway. RU 073 - Page 3 of 5 Paved (providing year around service, two lanes, maintained by state, city or county) interstate access is preferable. (18) A proposed site with convenient access by public transportation, including commercial airport and surface transportation and public accommodations, such as hotel/motel facilities. (19) A proposed site with a community of 30,000 population or greater within a 60-mile radius with: (a) Substantiation of an adequate workforce; (b) Demonstration of the ability of the community to provide for or develop adequate housing and other community services, including primary and secondary schools; (c) Range of physical specialty services; and (d) Community ability to cost effectively provide food, fuel, equipment, spare parts, and maintenance to the facility. DESIRABLE CRITERIA FOR MINIMUM SECURITY WORK CAMP SITES 291-073-0040 The desirable criteria for medium security work camps sites are listed below. They are not in any order of preference. An alternate means of meeting the intent of a criterion may be considered. (1) A proposed site which is available at little or no cost. (2) A proposed site which has 25 acres with 30 acres the preferred size. (3) A proposed site which is square or nearly so. (4) A proposed site in which the topography will minimize earthwork, foundation, construction costs and surface/subsurface drainage construction costs. (5) A proposed site which has natural buffers from surrounding land uses such as lakes, rivers, or ridges. (6) A proposed site which is rural, isolated locations are appropriate. (7) A proposed site in which the soils shall not be unduly prone to liquefaction due to seismic activity. (8) A proposed site which has appropriate soil percolation capacity to use septic tank and drain field, if one is proposed for the site. RU 073 - Page 4 of 5 (9) A proposed site with existing buildings that can be remodeled for utilization in new construction. (10) A proposed site not subject to flooding from adjacent bodies of water, natural surface drainage or subsurface high water table. (11 ) A proposed site not having an environme'ntal, ecological, cultural or historic feature or condition which cannot be mitigated with remediation and/or health risk assessment prior to the beginning of site development. These conditions include, but may not be limited to wetlands, historic or culturally significant sites, habitat for federally designated threatened and endangered species. (12) A proposed site that maximizes the use of present Department of Corrections facilities and considers such institution management issues as warehousing, inmate transportation, inmate management, etc. (13) A proposed site which has judicial, emergency and support services availability: (a) Thirty minutes or less to local and/or state police, full service fire department, and emergency medical transport/care; and (b) Sixty minutes or less response time from licensed full service in-patient care hospital that accepts OMAP payment. (14) A proposed site which can identify inmate work opportunities by either the public or private sector. (15) A proposed site in which the facility is perceived as beneficial by local jurisdiction and community. (16) A community able to cost effectively provide: (a) Food, fuel, equipment, spare parts, and maintenance to the facility; and (b) Support services to inmates, including counseling, religious, job training and education. RU 073 - Page 5 of 5 (9) A proposed site with existing buildings that can be remodeled for utilization in new construction. (10) A proposed site not subject to flooding from adjacent bodies of water, natural surface drainage or subsurface high water table. (11) A proposed site not having an environmental, ecological, cultural or historic feature or condition which cannot be mitigated with remediation and/or health risk assessment prior to the beginning of site development. These conditions include, but may not be limited to wetlands, historic or culturally significant sites, habitat for federally designated threatened and endangered species. (12) A proposed site that maximizes the use of present Department of Corrections facilities and considers such institution management issues as warehousing, inmate transportation, inmate management, etc. (13) A proposed site which has judicial, emergency and support services availability: (a) Thirty minutes or less to local and/or state police, full service fire department, and emergency medical transport/care; and (b) Sixty minutes or less response time from licensed full service in-patient care hospital that accepts OMAP payment. (14) A proposed site which can identify inmate work opportunities by either the public or private sector. (15) A proposed site in which the facility is perceived as beneficial by local jurisdiction and community. (16) A community able to cost effectively provide: (a) Food, fuel, equipment, spare parts, and maintenance to the facility; and (b) Support services to inmates, including counseling, religious, job training and education. RU 073 - Page 5 of 5 CORRECTIONS INSTITUTIONS; COMPACTS 421.616 (2) Thc Department of Corrections shall establish a medical treatment program for persons convicted of a sex crime or a felony attempt to commit a sex crime. Any person sentenced for a sex crime or a feloay attempt to commit a sex crime may be evaluated to determine if available medical or psycholog- ical treatment would be likely to reduce thc biological, emotional or psychological im- pulses that xverc thc probable cause of thc person's criminal conduct. If the evaluation determines that the person is a suitable can- didatc, thc department shall offer to allo~v the person to participate in the medical treatment program. The person must agree to become a program participant. (3) Thc State Board of Parole and Post- Prison Supervision shall offer as a condition of parole or post-prison supervision to per- sons convicted of a sex crime or a felony at- tempt to conunit a sex crime the opportunity to participate in a medical treatment pro- gram established by the Department of Cor- rections under this section. Any person eligible for re]ease for a sex crime or felony attempt to commit a sex crime may be eval- uated to determine if available medical or psychological treatment would be likely to reduce thc biological, emotional or psycho- logical impulses that were thc probable cause of the person's criminal conduct. If the eval- uation determines that the potion is a suit- able candidate, the board shall offer to allow thc person to participate in thc medical treatment program_ The person must agree to become a program participant. (4) Thc Department of Corrections shah adopt rules prescribing thc procedures and guidelines for implementing the medical treatment prograrr~ required under the pro- visions of this section. (5) The Department of Corrections shah report to the SixtT-eighth and Sixty-ninth Legislative Assemblies on the success of thc medical treatment programs required under the provisions of this section, including a re- port on recidivism rates of program partic- tpan~s. [1993 c.~7 STATE PENITENTIARY 421.605 Location and use of peniten- tiary. The Oregon State Penitentiary, lo- ,tared in Salem. Marion County. shall be used as . Department of Corrections institution ['or thc imprisonment of male persons com- mitted to thc custody- of the Department of 421.610 11951 c.491 §I; 1971 c.212 §4; rclmah4 by c.:i20 CORRECTIONS FACILITIES SITING 421.611 Findings. The Legislative As- sembly finds that: (1) There is a serious and urgent need to construct avid operate additional correctional facilities in this state to accommodate-cut,- rent and projected prison populations. (2) Immediate corrections facility plan- ning and siting requires an expedited proc- ess_ Existing corrections facility siting procedures are inadequate to meet the cur- rent and projected need for thc siting of ad- ditional correctional facilities in this state. 11993 c.745 §11 Note: 421.611 to 421.G30 were enacted into law the I,egislative Assembly but were not mhted to or made a part of ORS chapter 421 or any series therein by leg- islative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. 421.612 Definitions. As used in ORS 421.611 to 421.630, unless the context other- wise requires: (1) "Authority" means the Corrections Facilities Siting Authority as established in ORS 421.621. (2) "Department" means the Department of Corrections. 11995 c.745 §21 Note: See note under 421.611. 421.614 Cot'reetions facilities; deter- mining location. (1) The Department of Corrections shall determine locations for corrections facilities pursuant to the pro- visions of ORS 421.611 to 421.630. (2) The department shall establish, by rule, mandatory and desirable criteria to be used in the nominations made under ORB 421.616. 11905 c.74s §31 Note: Sc~ note under 421.611. 421.615 [Formerly 421.0:10; 1969 c.502 §2& repealed by 1971 c5:I2 ~1 421.616 When department required to nominate sites for corrections facilities; criteria for nominations; report required. When directed bv executive order of the Governor to initiate the corrections facility siting process established in ORS 421.611 to 421.630. the Department of Corrections shall: (1) Nominate sites for the construction and operation of additional corrections facil- ities in this state, based on the criteria adopted by the department pursuant to ORB 42L.G14. and the following criteria: (a) The interest demonstrated by local jurisdictions in having a site selected for a corrections tLtcility within their jurisdiction- (b) Thc availability or t~e ability of the local jurisdictions to provide adequate infra- structure to serve the facility. Title :34 Page 27 (1995 Editionl ,121.618 HUMAN SERVICES; JUVENILE CODE; CORRECTIONS (c) Natural features that allow design to promote compatibility with surroundings. (dl Tile availability of or ability to pro- vide local support fi~cilities. lc) The cost of developing the proposed f[~cility, including but not limited to: IA) The cost of land acquisition and con- struction including the availability of land or facilities owned by the State of ~)regon. (B) The cost of operating the facility. (D Thc location and dispersal of social service residential facilities and other cor- rections facilities. (2) Publish an initial report stating the conclusions of the department with regard to each site nominated. (3) Provide copies of the report to: (a) Each of the county commissioners in thc county where any of the nominated sites are located; (b) Each of the city council members where that site is located if any one of the sites is in a city; (c) Governmental agencies that may bc called upon to provide services to the facility :,t any of the sites, including police, fire, water[ sewage, roads and public transit; and (d) Any member of the public who re- quests a c~py and pays a fee as set by thc department- (4) Provide media notice regarding thc process and the sites nominated, including but not limited to publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or coun- ties where the sites are located. 11995 c.745 Sql Note: See note under 421.611. 421.618 Meetings to discuss site se- lections. Prior to nominating sites pursuant to ORS 421.616, the Department of Correc- tions shall hold a meeting or multiple meet- ~ngs with the elected local government officials involved to discuss the site se- lections, the on-site and off-site improve- ments needed at each site and the site preferences of the local governments. [199,5 < 745 ~51 Note: See note under 42L611. 421.620 IFormerly 421.425; repealc~l by 1965 c616 421.621 Corrections Facilities Siting Authority; membership; duties. (1) There m established a Corrections Facilities Siting z. uthority. Subject to the approval of thc Governor. tile authority shall make correc- tions fhcility site selection decisions as set £orth in ORS 421.623. The authority shall consist of five persons, to be appointed by the Governor and to serve at the Governor's pleasure. The Governor shall appoint one of ti~e members as chairperson. (2) A majority of the authority members constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. Members of thc authority are enti- tled to compensation and expenses as pro- vided in ORS 292.495- Any vacancy shall be filled by thc Governor. (3) The amtlmrity shall: (a) Direct such staff as assigned to it_ by the Department of Corrections; (b) Consult xvith the department, local government officials and others as it deems (c) Hold hearings; and (d) Make decisions on the siting of cor- rections facilities. [1995 c:;45 §fi[ Note: See note under 421.611. 421.623 Hearings in region where nominated site located; t~nking sites; findings. (1) Within 30 days after nomination of sites as set forth in ORS 421.616, the Cor- rections Facilities Siting Authority shah hold a hearing within the region where each nominated site is located to receive Depart- ment of Corrections, local government, neighborhood, law enforcement and public testimony regarding the sites nominated and conditions proposed therefor. (2) Not later than 10 days before the hearing held bv the authority as required by subsection (D-of this section, any affected local government or any person may submit proposed conditions to-the authority- Each proposed condition shall: (a) Be stated separately; (b) Be in writing; (c) Identi.fy the site to which the condi- tion, if approved, would attach; (d) Be specific; (c) Directly relate to any site or its pro- posed development, infx~structure, acces~ thereto or physical condition on or in the immediate vicinity of such site; and (f) Be supported by a statement of the need or reasons therefore. (3) Within 45 days after nomination of the sites as set forth in ORS 421.616, the au- thority shall select and rank in order of preference such sites as the Governor deems necessary or advisable for the construction and operation of corrections facilities, and specify site development conditions for each site, tJased on substantial evidence in the re- cord as a whole and supported by findings, which findings shall address only: (al The criteria specified by the depart- ment pursuant to ORS 421.614 and in ORS 421.616. (b} The reasons for not adopting any of the proposed conditions that were submitted Title 34 Page 28 (1995 Editionl CORRECTIONS INSTITUTIONS; COMPACTS 421.630 m accordance with subsection (2) of this section for the selected sites. (41 If one or more of the nominated sites meets the mandatory criteria established by thc department purs~tant to OR~ 421.614, the local jurisdiction demonstrates interest as described in subsection (5) of this section, and the aathority selects a site that has not demonstrated interest as described under subsection (5) of this section, thc authority shall make findings that demonstrate xvhy it selected the site in which the local jurisdic- tion did not demonstrate interest. (5) A local jurisdiction may demonstrate mterest bv presenting to the Department of Correctior~s a resolution that sets forth such interest no later than 30 days from issuance of an executive order under OP~ 421.616. {!995 c 7%5 §7] Note: See note under 42[.6ll. 421.625 [Formerly 421.135: relmaled by 196.g c616 421.626 Notification to Governor, ap- proval or disapproval of sites. (Il As soon as practicable after making the siting deci- sions, the Corrections Facilities Siting Au- thority shall notify the Governor a~d shall make-available for the Governor's rewew any documents or materials that the Governor (2l Within 15 days a~er receiving the notification required by subsection (~) of this section, the Governor shall approve or disap- prove such sites as selected and ranked by the authority as the Governor deems neces- sar.;' and advisable. (3) If the Governor disapproves one or more of the sites, the Governor may direct the authority to make and rank an additional selection or' selections, as appropriate, from the nominated sites and noti~ the Governor of thc selection. Within 15 days of receiving any ncxx selection, the Governor shall ap- prove or disapprove such additional sites as selected and rahked by the authority as the Governor deems necessary- or advisable. · 745 §81 421.1;28 EtTeet of' decision of Correc- tions Facilities Siting Authority. (ll Not- withstanding ORS 169.690, 195.025. 197.180, 215.130 14} and 227.286 or any other provision of lax~. including but not limited to statutes. ot'dinances, regulations and chartor pro- vis~ons, the decisions of the Corrections cilities Siting Authority, if approved by the Governor. shall bind the state and all coun- ties. ,.ltles and politicaI subdivisions m this construction and operation of the proposed ~.or,'cctions fi~cilities. Affected state agencies, countms ,:it~es and political subdivisions Title 34 shall issue the appropriate permits,.licenses and certificates and enter into any intergov- ernmental agreements as necessary for con- struction and operation of the t~acilities, subject only to the conditions of the siting decisions. 12) Each state or local governmental agency that; issues a permit, license or cer- tifical~e shall continue to exercise enforce- ment authority over the permit, licens~ or certificate. (3) Nothing in ORS 421.611 to 421.630 expands or alters the oblig}ttions of cities, counties and political subdiwsions to pay for infrastructure improvements for the proposed corrections facilities. It095 c_745 §9[ Note: See note under 421.611. 421.6;30 Judicial review. (1) Notxvith- standing ORS 183.400, 183.482, 183.484 and 197.825 or any other law, exclusive jurisdic- tion for review of any decision relating to the establishment of, addition to, remodeling of or siting of a corrections facility including the establishment of criteria under ORS 421.614, the nomination of sites under ORS 421.616 or any actions under ORS 421.623 or 421.626 is conferred upon the Supreme Court. (2) Proceedings for review shall be insti- tuted when any person or local government adversely affected files a petition with the Supreme Court that meets the following re- quirements: (al The petition shall be filed within 21 days of issuance of the specific decision on which the petition is based, except that a petition based on a decision to adopt criteria pursuant to ORS 421.614 shall be filed within 21 days of the issuance of the criteria. A de- cision made pursuant to ORS 421.623 or 421.626 with respect to any site may be re- viewed by the Supreme Court as provided in ORS 421.611 to 421.630. lb) The petition shall state the nature of the decision the petitioner desires reviewed, in what manner the decision below rejected the position raised by the petitioner below and shall state, by supporting affidavit, the facts showing how'the petitioner is adversely affected. In the case of a decision by the Corrections Facilities Siting Authority, the petitioner is adversely affected only when the petitioner can establish by clear and con- vincing evidence in the affidavit that: (Al The petitioner participated before the authority: (B) The petitioner will be within sight or sound of the facility or is affected econom- ically in excess of $5.000 in value; and (C) The petitioner proposed conditions as required bv ORS 421.623 ~2} that were re- jected by the authority. Page 29 (1995 Edition} 421.805 HUMAN SERVICES; JUVENILE CODE; CORRECTIONS : Icl The petitioner shall serve a copy of thc petition by registered or certified mail upon the Department of Corrections. the au- thority and the Attorney General. id) Within 30 days after service of the petition, the department shall transmit to thc Supreme Court, or a special master it desig- nates. [t~e m'iginal or a certified copy of the entire record and any findings that may have been made. Thc court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Governor, the de- partment or the authority as to any issue of fi, ct or issue within executive branch dis- cretion. (3) If the petition is for review of a deci- sion made by the siting authority, the record shall include only: (a) The report of the authority. (b) The conditions, if any, on the nomi- nation. (c) The transcript of the hearing before the authority. However, on motion of the authority, the Supreme Court may limit the transcript to those matters in which the pe- titioner is interested as provided in sub- section (2)(b) of this section. (d) Evidence submitted by thc petitioner to the authority, but on motion of any party to the judicial review, the Supreme Court may supplement the record with additional materials from the hearing before the au- thority. {e) The transcript of the decision-making meeting of the authority. (f) The authority findings and decision. (4) Upon review, the Supreme Court may reverse or remand the decision if the Su- preme Court finds the department, the au- thority or the Governor: (al Exceeded th~ statutory or constitu- tional authority of the decision maker; or (b) Made a decision not supported bv substantial evidence. For purposes of this subsection and ORS 421.623 (3), "substantial evidence" means evidence that, taken in iso- lation, a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The substantiality of the evidence shall not be evaluated by considering the whole record. (5) Proceedings for review under this section shall be given priority over all other matters before the Supreme Court. tl995 c.745 §~Ol Note: See note under 421.611. 421.705 IF~nnerly 421.0,~0:1965 c.616 §75; 1983 c2~05 ~; rcl~aled by 1987 c.320 §246J 421.710 JFormerly 421.083; 1983 c2~05 §9; repea~e~t by 1987 c~T20 §2461 BRANCH INSTITUTIONS 421.805 Siting of branch institutions. The Department of Corrections may establish and operate institutions, other domiciliary facilities or branches of existing Department of Corrections institutions or domiciliary fa- cilities. Siting of such institutions, branches or domiciliary facilities must be done in ac- cordance with statutes governing the siting or locating of correctional institutions. The institutions, branches or facilities shall be used for thc care and custody of inmates as- signed thereto and shall be operated to facil- itate the return of the inmates to society. [1969 c.~0 §2; 1983 c.740 §148; 1927 c.320 §2091 Note: 421.~$ was enact*l into law by the I~egisla- tire Ass~nblv but was not added to or made a part of ()liS chapter 421 by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. PENALTIES 421.9tl0 Penalties. (I) Violation of ORS 421.0,5.5, 421.325, 42L340 or 42~.410 is punish- able upon conviction by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or both. (2) Violation of ORS 421.105 (2) is pun- ishable in the same manner as if the individ- ual injured unlawfully was not convicted or sentenced. IAmeflded by 1965 c.616 §76; 198l c~qS0 §31 CHAPTER [Reserved for expansion] Title 34 Page 30 (1995 Edition) EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. EO - 97 - 06 CORRECTIONS FACELITIES SITING AUTItORITY WHEREAS: 1. The Legislative Assembly during the 1995 regular session pa~sed House Bill 2214, now codified at OP~S 421.611, et seq. WIKEREAS: 2. House Bill 2214 established the Corrections Facilities Siting Authority mad the process for nominating mad e~tabIishifig facilities. WIIEREAS: 3. ORS 421.616 requires the Governor to initiate the correct, toms facilities siting process established in ~ act. IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: The Department of Corrections shall begin the corrections facilities siting process set out in ORS 421.616 by nominating sites for a women's prison/intake center . complex and its future expansion to be sited in Clac~mas, Mulmomah, or Washington county. The process for nominating sites by the Department of Cotlections and selecting and ranking site~ by the Siting Authority, shall take no longer th,n approximately 120 days from the issuance of thia F_,XI~aI~iVC Order. Dated thin ~- day of Jaauary, 1997, a} Salem, Oregom ATTEST: Phil Keisling / s~.c~'ua(Y Or s~r^~ MINIMUM RE(~UIRED ACREAGE = 1.~0 PLOT A 40,5 AC~E$ PLOT B lg.5 ACRES - ..... I 130 ACRE' SITE DIAGRAM .5286' ; PLOT B 1'.$ AC~ES L 268' .. '1 I 268' F ~ ~ I ..... ~ ~ '~ BBUImlNO~ ~0 -- - - 1 I ~; ~1,, I I II ~ ~ r I I PROPERTY LINE 160 ACRE SITE DIAGRAM MINIMUM REQ~JIRED ACREAGE = 175 3496' PLOT A 40,5 AC~E$ ........................................ PLOT D 14,7 ACRES ~ kI , . I .. , I j 368'I ~-J ---1 I BUILDING LEGEND I / .~-CLEAR LINE j I ~ j J A WORKFORCE I I c co.E n~Rc~s n I I Al _ _ ,.< ] R J_ -- ,-~ PLOT o J [ J L -- "~'~PLOTA L_ PLOTS .].PLOTCl J PROPERTY LINE I I I '\368' I , ~ ..... _, .......................... £ ............ 175 ACRE 'SI'TE DIAGRAM mmalmmll~a .~680' MINIMUM REQUIRED ACREAGE I ~i~ 76.9 I r I BUI~ING ~ND I 460~ ~CLEAR LINE F ~ ] ~ ] '- . : ~::~ ~: ~ [ ~i~ I I , I IIIIII , , I PLOT A L ~OT e ~PLO~ ~ i PROPERTY LINE I ~n'=~ I I 1 200 ACRE S~E DIAGRAM