Pugsley Closure "Huge Economic Blow" For Region

The announced closure of Pugsley Correctional Facility Tuesday caught local and political leaders by surprise – many of whom criticized the state’s decision, calling it a “huge economic blow” for Grand Traverse County.

Citing Michigan’s declining prison population and factors including the age and operating costs of Pugsley, the Michigan Department of Corrections announced the Kingsley facility will close effective September 24. “While this is a difficult day for the staff at Pugsley, the ability to close a facility is a result of the hard work by so many across the department to help bring down our prison population,” MDOC Director Heidi Washington said in a written statement.

The 23-acre, Level 1 state prison – which first opened in Kingsley in 1956 – can accommodate up to 1,344 prisoners. MDOC Spokesperson Chris Gautz tells The Ticker discussion focused on closing one of the department's five standalone minimum-security prisons as the state’s prison population dropped from a 2007 peak of 51,554 to today’s rate of under 42,000. Pugsley's closure is expected to save Michigan $22 million next year.

The MDOC has 1,500 empty beds available in other state facilities to accommodate prisoners, according to Gautz. Pugsley was targeted because its inmate population most closely aligned with that number of beds, he says. “Of the four other minimum-security prisons, two have in excess of 2,000 beds, so we wouldn’t be able to close those,” says Gautz. “The other two in the Upper Peninsula have 1,100 prisoners. With (Pugsley) around 1,300, it put us much closer to that number.”

Pugsley will stop accepting new prisoners and transfers “immediately,” says Gautz, which will contribute to a natural attrition in population over the summer. The remaining inmates will be assigned to other facilities by September. No prisoners will be released early due to the closure, Gautz says.

Local law enforcement and judicial leaders including Traverse City Police Department Chief Jeff O’Brien, Grand Traverse Sheriff Tom Bensley, Grand Traverse County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Cooney and Judge Philip Rodgers tell The Ticker Pugsley’s closure won't disrupt their operations or those of the community’s courts or jails, since Pugsley is state-run and houses state prisoners. But all expressed deep concern about the 230 local jobs that will be eliminated by the prison’s closing.

“To have (that) payroll moved out of Grand Traverse County…it’s a stunning economic impact,” says Rodgers. “Pugsley has been part of the Grand Traverse County and Kingsley area for decades. It’s provided good-paying jobs with benefits.”

Rodgers, who has been an outspoken critic in recent years of “poor management” and security issues at Pugsley, says he'd hoped to see the prison “made safer – not close.” Gautz says media scrutiny of assaults and other crimes in the facility did not factor into the MDOC’s decision to shutter Pugsley. But Rodgers questions the MDOC’s decision-making process, saying it was hasty and lacked public engagement.

“I’d feel better about the process if it had been more transparent,” he says. “I was told Pugsley was more expensive to operate (than other prisons)…but not why. There was no open public process.”

The sudden timing of the announcement drew the ire of State Rep. Larry Inman (R-Traverse City) and State Sen. Wayne Schmidt (R-Traverse City), both of whom issued statements Tuesday expressing their disappointment with the MDOC.

“The closure of the prison will hurt not only those who work at Pugsley, but will cause a chain reaction for all families who live, work and/or attend schools in our community,” Inman said. Agreed Schmidt: “Make no mistake: This decision will have a deep, residual impact,” he said. “Unilaterally closing a prison to only save a few bucks in spite of all the benefits the facility provides to our community seems extremely shortsighted.”

Gautz says the MDOC won’t “know the full number of employees that will be laid off until September.” That’s because the department is working with the affected staff members – as well as their union representatives – to determine which employees are willing to move to take MDOC jobs elsewhere in Michigan, which have seniority to “bump” into positions at nearby facilities, and which will leave the system or retire. Roughly 10 percent of the staff is retirement-eligible, Gautz says.

“It’s a long and complicated process…but we’re already meeting with employees to talk about how it will work, and have established a special email if they have any questions,” he says.