Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1997 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 150 - LEASE-PURCHASE SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL Number 063 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would first consider HB 150, "An Act giving notice of and approving a lease-purchase agreement with the City of Seward for the construction and operation of an addition to the Spring Creek Correctional Center, and setting conditions and limitations on the facility's construction and operation." He noted that Mayor Louis Bencardino, City of Seward, and Ron Garzini, the City Manager, would be available via teleconference for questions. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS advised members that HB 150 was asking to provide a bond situation for the City of Seward to bond and expand the existing Spring Creek Correctional facility in Seward, Alaska, and to enter into a lease agreement with the state of Alaska. He noted that eventually, the state would pay off the bond and own the facility. Representative Davis pointed out that the state would operate the facility, and the bill did not entertain, in any degree, any privatization. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS advised members that the bill indicated the estimated cost of the project, and estimated annual payments, although he pointed out that there were always varying views on a construction estimate. He noted that testimony had taken place previously of various estimates on the dollars that it might take to construct the expansion under the required building codes. REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT expressed that during the last hearing on the proposed legislation, some comparisons had been made regarding the cost of expanding the Spring Creek Correction Center, to the cost of the private facility in Arizona, or any private prison. He stated that Representative Rokeberg had tallied the fiscal notes, which took into account indirect costs on the fiscal notes, such as inmate programs and inmate health care. Representative Croft understood those were not to be part of the Arizona bench marks. Number 380 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Margot Knuth come forward to respond to questions, and announced that it was Ms. Knuth's birthday, and welcomed her on behalf of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, representing the Department of Corrections, thanked members for the birthday wish. In response to Representative Croft's concern, Ms. Knuth advised members that the Arizona price did not include health care funds, nor inmate programs that would be available at the Spring Creek Correctional Center. She noted that if members were to include those costs, they would be comparing apples to apples, and they would be comparable. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Ms. Knuth had an estimate of the health costs and program costs if they were added on to the Arizona numbers. MS. KNUTH could not provide an accurate figure, although pointed out that Deputy Commissioner Bill Parker was available and could possibly answer that. CHAIRMAN GREEN felt Deputy Commissioner Parker could also address the issue of how much infrastructure the expansion of the Spring Creek facility would not have, compared to another piece of proposed legislation in the House Judiciary Committee. MS. KNUTH advised members that with the Spring Creek facility, there would be a need to address some of the infrastructure and core facilities that need expanding. She advised members that the Spring Creek facility was a maximum and close custody facility, and because the state was in particular need for medium beds, that the Palmer Correction Center was the cheapest place to expand for those beds. Ms. Knuth advised members they had arrived at a figure of $59,000 for expansion at the Palmer facility because it simply added beds and extended the fence around the perimeter. MS. KNUTH pointed out that one of the other differences between the cost of the Arizona facility and the Spring Creek Correctional Center was whether there would be programs provided for inmates, which costs money; however, a return hoped to be realized was a reduction in the recidivism rates by providing those programs, which was definitely a part of the mission of the Department of Corrections. Number 642 CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that if the state were to enter into an agreement as laid out in HB 150, would there be a bonding that would prevail in case a problem arose mid-stride, and the state would not be held with a partially completed addition. MS. KNUTH believed that through testimony heard on another matter, that was something that was usually addressed in the contracting process. She would expect that to be a condition that the state of Alaska would address to make sure they were in an appropriate position in that respect. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if facilities were, typically, used longer than 15 years. MS. KNUTH advised members that the life expectancy of a facility, as well as an expansion, would exceed 15 years; however, she did not know if there was a set life expectancy for facilities in Alaska. She stated that that had been a concern when comparing construction projects that had been designed by Alaskans, for Alaska, compared with projects that could be designed for use in the Lower 48, in trying to bring those blue print plans up to Alaska because Alaska's conditions were somewhat harsher than some of the other climates. Ms. Knuth advised members that was one of the issues that makes the state want to be involved in design plans, and being a part of the construction at some level, to make sure that it would have a life expectancy of 30 plus years. CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that Representative Porter, who was generally always at committee early, or on time, may or may not join the committee as his Step-father passed away that morning. Number 845 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE pointed out that a criticism that often arose was that the state was all for locking people up, but once that was done, there was the lack of a place to put them once sentenced to prison. He advised members he would be voting in support of HB 150. Representative Bunde understood that the Spring Creek Correctional Center was a maximum security facility; however, while that was not the prime thrust of the state's prison growth, he was pessimist enough to believe the facility would be used for some time to come. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he would also like to see more expansion of the medium security facilities in the state, that there might be the possibility of Palmer, Alaska, and other areas within the state, to follow what the city of Seward was doing with the Spring Creek facility. Number 953 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved to report HB 150 out of committee with individual recommendations, and attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He advised members that he had served on the budget subcommittee for the Department of Corrections for the third year now. He advised members that he understood the desire of the bill sponsor in bringing the bill forward because he understood that it would increase the economic activity in the city of Seward and part of the Kenai Peninsula, and also his commitment to making sure the state had an adequate system for incarcerating prisoners, as well as the need for hard beds in the state. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated with that, he very much opposed HB 150 because he felt it would be a detriment to other legislation before the committee, the private prison bill. And also because he felt it was a part of a failed idea, on the part of the administration, to put together a combination bond package of facility expansion throughout the state. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that they were talking about expending $150 million, and he felt there should be more backup support, and additional thinking put into developing such a plan. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members he was also concerned with the site selection for the expansion of the Spring Creek facility. He noted the fact that the current facility was built on a flood plain, and he did not feel the state should be expanding facilities in areas that clearly had some structural and development deficiencies. Representative Rokeberg advised members he was also concerned with what he felt was gross-disinformation provided by the city of Seward before the Corrections budget subcommittee. Number 1163 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that he would vote in favor of HB 150 for three reasons. He advised members that it was popular in its community, it would keep the money in the state, and he felt it was reasonably priced. Representative Croft pointed out that during a previous hearing, Representative Rokeberg totalled the Department of Corrections fiscal notes on the bill, and the Department of Revenue's lease term, which came to $10 million, or approximately $110 per inmate, and as he pointed out earlier, Representative Croft advised members that it included indirect costs, whereas the Arizona facility did not include those costs. He stated when backing out those numbers, it equates to $82 per inmate, per day figure, still a little higher than Arizona numbers, but much more comparable and defensible, given spending $82 in the state, rather than $70 outside. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that after the 15 year debt service was over, the state still had the facility, and at that point, the cost per inmate, per day, would drop to $54. He stated that that would be a higher, but reasonable cost, during the lease life of the facility, but it would be lower once the debt service was paid off. Representative Croft stated that combined with the other features; popularity in the community of Seward, and that the monies would be spent in the state, rather than outside, makes HB 150 close to an ideal solution, and if not ideal, at least practical. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the grossed out figure, with respect to Arizona inmates per day, was $72. He disputed the basic premises about the numbers because he did not feel the expansion could be built for the price indicated. Representative Rokeberg noted that even though the state would own the facility after 15 years, it did not assume any kind of maintenance funds, or other repair and deferred maintenance charges that would normally be accounted for in a private sector type real estate building project, which he felt was most prudent. Number 1365 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt the discussion related to finance questions, and pointed out that there was a crisis situation in the state with respect to overcrowded prisons, and he felt it was necessary that something be done. He noted that HB 150 was an option in the tool box for the Department of Corrections, of all the things that might be acceptable to the entire legislature. Representative Davis advised members that HB 150 was an option, and felt it should remain on the table as an option. MS. KNUTH did not believe there was any conflict, or inconsistency between HB 150 and HB 53, as well as several other expansion or construction concepts that were being put forth. She explained that there truly was a significant prisoner over-population problem, and the Spring Creek facility was designed for maximum security and the facility proposed in HB 53 was for a medium security facility; however, expressed that the state needed all the medium beds they could get; 1000 at least. Number 1453 CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed with Representative Rokeberg that there were flood problems at the Spring Creek facility; however, reminded members that the Trading Bay facility was built on a flood plain and had existed there for over 30 years, and had even withstood Mt. Spur blocking up the river causing all sorts flooding problems, and in that case, none of the Trading Bay tanks were in jeopardy. Chairman Green pointed out that construction science had said that building on a flood plain was not all bad, in fact, the gravel provides for a very good foundation. Chairman Green felt that the contract would be the critical issue, and the criteria required as well as type of operation specified, that it would be in the contract, and if no one could meet the contract, the issue may have to be re-visited. Chairman Green stated that if the city of Seward entered into a contract with the state, they would be held to that contract, and the bonding would be a part of the contract. He noted also that Ms. Knuth had alluded to the same problem with HB 53, and consequently from the Cleary decision, the state's prisons were overcrowded presently, with a predicted escalation in the rate of incarceration of 8 percent. Chairman Green stated that worse than that, through feedback he had gotten, judges were reluctant to assign full sentencing because of the lack of prison space. He felt that sent the wrong message to the potential offender, and thought that as a state, they should say, yes, it would be expensive, but there had been enough crime. Number 1566 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if it was safe to assume that for the maximum security facilities, if space were available and the need existed, that medium or minimum prisoners could be placed in that facility; however, a medium or minimum security facility could not house a maximum custody prisoner. MS. KNUTH advised members that would be correct. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that he spent a week at the Spring Creek Correctional Center in the past through his law practice, and he felt that it was a well run facility. He noted that one of the problems he had encountered during his time as a state prosecutor was that all too frequently they would have to structure agreements, not so much for the high-end cases, but for the low-end cases, which ultimately dismissed B misdemeanors; the B misdemeanants turn into C felons, et cetera, and if not corrected, they turn into larger problems. Representative Berkowitz felt it was important to have a facility of the nature of the Spring Creek facility, and also it would be flexible, as pointed out by Representative James; high security areas could be used to house medium custody prisoners. Number 1655 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated with respect that there were other pieces of legislation addressing the prison population problem, that he did not know that the state would have private prisons; however, even so, they would not be maximum security prisons. Representative Bunde stated that from his view, there was the need for space at various levels, and what was before members, HB 150, was an available option and he did not believe it interfered with the legislature considering other options. Number 1726 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS spoke to the flood plain problem at the Spring Creek facility, and advised members that initially there were flood problems in the design of the facility; however, the facility had functioned adequately after some corrections were made. He noted that it was obvious where the problems come from, and obvious what could be done to correct those problems. Representative Davis pointed out that, as had been testified in committee, the foundation would be elevated with any expansion of the facility, as well as other options available to correct the problems that occurred in the initial construction of the Spring Creek facility. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS advised members that the state would not take over, or make payments, until the facility was completed and accepted by the state, and he thought Ms. Knuth could verify that. MS. KNUTH advised members that would be correct. Number 1769 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that while speaking with Mr. Garzini and Mayor Bencardino, one of the plans included deepening the channel to the point that it could handle a large body of water without having to spread horizontally. This would also benefit the site construction phase because they could utilize the dredged out gravel. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that members consider the state's priority needs when considering spending the state's limited amount of funds for the purpose of expanding the state's prison facilities. He pointed out that a pre-sentence facility was needed in the Anchorage area, and he also felt, personally, that a women's prison facility was needed in the state. Additional medium beds were especially needed, as well as soft beds, in terms of priorities to handle the growing prisoner populations within the state. Representative Rokeberg felt it was necessary to consider a rational, long range plan, that would consider all constituent elements of all the state's needs, and prioritize those as to how to spend state dollars. He stated that if the Governor was not going to do that, it would be the legislature's responsibility, but he did not feel HB 150 fit into that plan, adding that it might be a constituent element of the total plan; however, he felt prior to authorizing something, it needed to be done in a rational, overall, well planned out and thought out manner. Number 1854 CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the state was experiencing prison overcrowding in all but three facilities, and it was projected that within a two year period, or the conclusion of the construction of a new or expanded facility, the state would be right back where it started. It was his suggestion that rather than bail out of Cleary, only to find you would be dealing with the same situation in the near future, that it would be worth some state dollars. Chairman Green pointed out that for at least five years that he had been in the legislature every majority member he had spoken to had used "fight crime" as a high priority issue which needed to be addressed. Number 1920 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the objection was maintained on the motion to report HB 150 out of committee. Representative Rokeberg maintained his objection, so Chairman Green requested a roll call vote. In favor: Representatives Bunde, James, Croft, Berkowitz and Chairman Green. Opposed: Representative Rokeberg. Representative Porter was not present during this roll call vote. The motion passed 5 to 1. HB 150 was reported out of committee with the attached fiscal notes.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|