Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/27/2002 10:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 497 - LEASE-PURCHASE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY [Contains discussion of SB 231] CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 497, "An Act giving notice of and approving the entry into, and the issuance of, certificates of participation for the upgrade, expansion, and replacement of certain correctional facilities and jails; giving notice of and approving the entry into, lease-financing agreements for certain of those projects; and providing for an effective date." Number 0139 MARGOT KNUTH, Strategic Planning Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner - Juneau, Department of Corrections, told the committee that this legislature is one of the best-informed legislatures on the needs of the Department of Corrections in many years. She explained that there are overcrowded facilities, and the department is relying on prison beds in Arizona to house all of the inmates. There are both regional needs and prison needs. Both prison beds and beds in the jail facilities around the state are needed, because those facilities are housing pretrial inmates who need to be near the court, and they're housing people with very short sentences who will cycle through the system in a few days. Number 0260 MS. KNUTH said it doesn't make economic sense to transport them to the Palmer prison that the state now has, or the Whittier prison that has been proposed, or Arizona. The capacity is roughly 4,600 inmates and beds. She informed the members that just on any given day, there are 30,000 people cycling through those beds. There are 30,000 bookings and about 29,800 releases each year. Most of those people spend a very short time in the system. She explained that HB 497 takes a regional approach on expanding facilities in a phased manner. The first stage authorizes expanding the Palmer Correctional Center by 237 beds, expanding the jails in Bethel and Fairbanks, and expanding the Spring Creek Correctional Center Youthful Offender Program in Seward. MS. KNUTH reported that the facility in Seward is a special needs population. In the last ten years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of youthful offenders, who are being treated as adults in the system, and they present special management problems and have special education needs. Putting them in one place and running a special program for them is their best hope for rehabilitation and functioning in the system, without causing disruption to other inmates. The other part of HB 497 addresses the needs in four community jails in Dillingham, Kodiak, Kotzebue, and the North Slope Borough. Number 0436 MS. KNUTH admitted that the four community jails are in bad shape; they are overcrowded and rundown. They are the four most utilized jails of the fifteen jails statewide. All have fairly urgent needs, but there isn't enough money to take care of everything all at once, and it would be difficult in terms of project management to do everything at once. These are the four most urgent in the sense that they are relied upon by the communities and the department to the greatest degree. MS. KNUTH indicated that HB 497 recognizes that there are other expansion needs for the department. It authorizes design funding for expanding the Mat-Su Pretrial Facility. She noted that the Matanuska-Susitna Valley has the fastest growing population. Unfortunately, that means it also has the fastest growing need for additional incarceration space. The newly opened Anchorage Jail had been developed and designed to expand by 200 inmates within five years, so part of the design costs are for that jail. The Point MacKenzie Farm is an economical placement for inmates who are well suited for rehabilitation projects and are expected to leave the system fairly soon. Number 0573 MS. KNUTH pointed out that down the road, the Wildwood Correctional Center in Kenai, the Lemon Creek Correctional Center in Juneau, and the jail in Ketchikan will need to be expanded. All of this comes with a price tag, and the mechanism used in this legislation is for the state to issue bonds. It utilizes the certification of participation method, which means that the department will pay back the capital costs on an annual basis, and the operating costs are set out in the bill. MS. KNUTH explained the difference between HB 497 and Senator Green's bill, SB 231, is that SB 231 targets the same facilities in the same areas, but authorizes all of the projects simultaneously. Although there isn't a difference in terms of numbers or locations, the timetable is opened up, and the funding mechanism is different. In SB 231, the local governments would be issuing the bonds, and the state would enter into local contracts with the local governments and repay them. The two bills are similar in terms of the philosophical approach using regional expansion. Number 0705 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS agreed that the Kodiak jail is in bad shape. He asked for more detail on the matching grants between the four communities and the state. MS. KNUTH answered that the state would pay $4 million, and the four communities need to come up with a matching $4 million. Kotzebue already has a federal grant that would cover its share. The North Slope Borough is able to fund its portion fairly readily. Dillingham and Kodiak need to work a little harder to come up with their part of it, but they are very optimistic and are very committed. This is a priority for their communities, and they expect to match it. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that state funds would not be expended unless the communities come up with the matching share. MS. KNUTH agreed and said it is a conditional grant. Number 0900 CHAIR COGHILL asked how the local communities share in the certificate of participation. He wondered if it is a shared bond. MS. KNUTH answered that the communities actually own these facilities, and this envisions that they will keep ownership. The state would grant the $4 million, and the local communities would retain the title. There is an acknowledgement that the state is paying the operating expenses for the facilities because the inmates are all state inmates; none are housed there on local charges. Increasing the capacity will increase the operating expenses; that increase has been identified in the bill, and the state would fund it. Number 0960 CHAIR COGHILL said the difference in funding the two bills is that HB 497 has the state as the bonding source, whereas the Senate bill has the local governments as the bonding source. He asked about the different bonding mechanisms. MS. KNUTH said that the Department of Revenue can issue the bonds for less than the local governments. Local governments had talked about going through AIDEA [Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority] for funding assistance. The difference between the two is not economically significant. She indicated that there is a benefit in having local commitment to the project. There's a little awkwardness in that the state would have to turn over title of part of the facility, at least for the local governments to be able to issue their bonds, but they have not expressed interest in keeping title to the facilities past the bonding period. Even if they did, the state would probably be amenable to that. She predicted that Alaska eventually will go the way of locally owned and operated facilities. Number 1091 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that all the facilities for state criminals will have to be addressed someday: separate what is the state's responsibility, and what is the local government's responsibility. She said she is not convinced that the local governments have the ability to do that yet. She expressed concern about the fiscal problems and "bonding enthusiasm." There is a limit to what can be done. She asked Ms. Knuth about transferring ownership to the local facilities. MS. KNUTH answered that HB 497 does not transfer ownership to the local governments; that would be Senator Green's bill, SB 231, which has the local governments issuing the bonds. In the governor's bill, the state issues the bonds, and the state retains ownership of the state jails and prisons. This bill has two different parts. One is the state prisons and jails, and the other is the community jails. The community jails are locally owned and are the small 5- to 10-bed facilities. The local governments would continue to own them, and the $4 million that the state would contribute would be a part of the bond issuance for the state projects. There would be an additional $12 million issued in bonds for the state projects which would be secured by the state's facilities and would go to the community jails. Number 1263 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted there have been many things before the legislature for new construction of various kinds of things, and unless there is a provision for maintenance, she is not interested in building new facilities. She said it is embarrassing to have facilities that belong either to local governments or the state which look like they are totally deteriorated. She always wants to tie something to these construction issues that provided the maintenance, and she has never been able to do that. She commented that nobody wants to think about the fact that the facilities have to be kept up. MS. KNUTH agreed that was a valid point. She said she thought that it would be possible for the state to identify what those maintenance costs would be, and they could be set out in legislation. Even though a bill in 2002 cannot bind future legislatures for appropriations, it could acknowledge what that responsibility is, and what the amount of money would be. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she would like to see funds set aside for maintenance on every building in the state. CHAIR COGHILL asked if lease payments were a part of the maintenance agreement. MS. KNUTH said the traditional funding mechanism does not function that way. It just covers the cost of the debt. Maintenance is a part of departmental annual budgets, and that separation creates the problem. Number 1525 MS. KNUTH pointed out that the department has no control over the number of beds it needs. The department makes decisions about whether to assign a prison bed or a halfway house or how soon to furlough [an inmate], while the judge sends down the sentence as per the parameters set by the legislature. She told the committee that there is a trend in other states to reexamine some of the sentencing structures for felonies. As a matter of economics, Alaska might need to go that route. For example, the property offense level is still $500 for a felony, and it has been that way since statehood. She commented that bumping into another car would cause more than $500 damage. If that level were raised to $1,000 or $2,000, maybe the number of felonies and the sentences could be reduced, and maybe the department wouldn't need the capital money for new beds. Number 1598 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that there is good technology for short sentences, whereby people can serve time at home if someone watches them if they aren't dangerous to society. She said she hasn't seen much interest in going that direction either. Certainly it is cheaper to keep them at home on a monitoring system than it would be to find a bed and provide three meals and a cot. She noted that some real innovative thinking needs to be done on this issue; the state cannot afford where it's going on this. Number 1685 CHAIR COGHILL asked why there aren't more halfway houses and if it is because of the sentencing. He wondered if there are ways to have less expensive beds. MS. KNUTH said the department actively pursues the use of halfway house beds whenever possible. There used to be minimum security prisons, and there is no such thing anymore. Anybody who is a minimum security risk is now in a halfway house or an electronic monitoring program. So, incarceration in a "hard bed" starts at the medium level. She acknowledged that there are limitations from the sentencing code and from the conviction. She pointed out that there are community issues too. The willingness to have someone [who's been charged with] domestic violence assault out in the community is not as great. It is a complicated area. Ms. Knuth said that the department has probably gone as far as it can with the existing criminal sentencing code structure in terms of utilizing halfway houses and is getting more aggressive about home furlough and electronic monitoring. In the abstract, those things sound good, but then when there are criminal inmates who are known to their neighbors, it's always, "but not him." Number 1808 CHAIR COGHILL noted that the price per bed in the Senate bill is significantly lower and wondered what the difference is. The Senate bill averages $155,000 per bed, and HB 497 runs between $159,000 and $175,000. MS. KNUTH replied that all the identified projects and the future ones would average $155,000. The Point MacKenzie Farm beds and the Anchorage Jail beds are going to come in under $155,000 in phase 2 of HB 497. She acknowledged that there is a regional problem. Building in Bethel and Fairbanks is certainly more expensive than the Anchorage bowl area, and Spring Creek is more because it is a maximum security facility. Number 1878 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he was shocked to hear that 30,000 people cycle through the system. He asked how many inmates are maximum security who will be in the system forever. MS. KNUTH answered that she didn't have the exact number, but it is a relatively small number. None of the approximately 1,000 inmates sent to Arizona have been maximum security. She guessed the number would be around 500 or so. Their sentences are between 40 and 150 years. Even if they served 20 years, they are not eligible for alternative placement. She noted that geriatric prisoners and their medical costs will be a problem that the department will face in the near future. There are people who committed heinous offenses 40 years ago who are now having significant medical issues. At some point the department is going to have to balance what it thinks is appropriate for them. Most offenders in Alaska are misdemeanants in the system a short period of time. Number 2013 CHAIR COGHILL asked why there is a need to move prisoners. MS. KNUTH replied that from the time of the arrest, there will be arraignment, maybe a trial, and a sentencing. Each of those three proceedings needs to occur before a judge in the place where the person was arrested. Bethel and Fairbanks are overcrowded with people who need to be in that area. Once it spills over, those inmates are moved to a place such as Palmer medium class prison, which isn't the right place for them, but it's the only place with space. They get moved to Palmer after arraignment, and they're there for two weeks until it's time for sentencing because they changed their plea and are ready to go before the court. She explained that the new Anchorage Jail is a pilot project that has a courtroom there, so people don't need to be transported anywhere for arraignment or sentencing. MS. KNUTH noted that as the electronic capabilities are improved, judges are reluctant to sentence a person by video camera; they feel a need for face-to-face appearances for sentencing. But technology may be relied on for arraignment and other procedures. Prisoners are moved because of the number of court appearances and the fact that they have short sentences. When people plead out to an offense and serve time, then they need to be transported home. The state is obligated to book them out of the facility they were booked in. Every time inmates are moved, they have to be moved back, and it adds up. CHAIR COGHILL commented that it is hard on inmates in court- ordered programs who get moved. He said it would be good to see the documented cost compared to what it would cost for a bed in the community. Number 2179 MS. KNUTH said people also get transferred within the system because space opens up somewhere else that has a program. The only way that could be addressed is to overbuild to the peak rather than to the median, and Alaska doesn't have the funds for that. She agreed with his concern on the inmates finishing the programs because the programs are the key to success. Number 2219 CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Knuth to explain the categories of the facilities. MS. KNUTH explained that at some facilities, inmates could be arraigned, sentenced, and serve the whole sentence there. Those places tend to have names which include the words "correctional center." The Mat-Su Pretrial Facility was more recently built and by that time, the department recognized that nobody was able to serve the whole sentence in these regional places, so they called it the Mat-Su Pretrial Facility. The name of the Anchorage Jail acknowledges that it is for misdemeanants and pretrial people. The three prisons in Alaska are the Palmer Correctional Center, the Wildwood Correctional Center in Kenai, and the Spring Creek Correctional Center in Seward. There is no booking capability at those facilities, so an inmate has to start somewhere else. She noted that programs are most productive at the prisons because the inmates usually have months to serve. Number 2324 CHAIR COGHILL noticed that the Anchorage Jail is planned for another 192 beds and wondered if that plan was with the initial construction. MS. KNUTH said it was designed for that expansion because it would be needed in the future. It can be done cost effectively because of that. CHAIR COGHILL said he couldn't argue with the number of beds but struggled if this was the best way to handle the population. He asked about the youthful offenders, and how they're being handled. Number 2396 MS. KNUTH replied that if they're in Palmer, Wildwood, or a regional facility, they are intermingled with the rest of the population, but they do have special needs. There is a youthful offender program at Spring Creek that has about 70 beds, but the number of offenders under the age of 25 has grown in the last five or six years. MS. KNUTH explained that the youthful offenders have special impulse-control problems. Not only do they have a problem being law-abiding, but they also bring impetuousness and juvenile development issues. A lot of druggies use marijuana which arrests development. A lot of these offenders have used marijuana for a long time, so even at age 25, the adjustment or socialization level is about the level of someone 15 or 16 years old. The Spring Creek program puts them together with people who are specially trained in dealing with adolescents with an emphasis on education and other chemical dependency programs. The program at Spring Creek tries to spare the rest of the inmate population from the youthful offenders who often are the ones causing assaults in the facilities. People in their 30s and 40s have figured out how to live there, and the young kids don't have that wisdom. The Spring Creek Youthful Offender Program gives the kids the opportunity to work on their needs and improve their chance for rehabilitation. Number 2502 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what percentage of the inmate population is female and how the facilities cope with that. MS. KNUTH answered that Hiland Mountain Correctional Center in Eagle River is exclusively for women. Unfortunately, the percentages of females being incarcerated is increasing. The percentage isn't even 10 percent. There are 250 women in Hiland out of a total population of 5,000. Ms. Knuth reported that there have to be separate facilities in regional jails, and each institution has a way to deal with that. At the Anchorage Jail, there is a place where a wall can be put up in the dorm to separate the women from the men. It is a given that there will be separation. The department tries to have parity with programs, but that is difficult because of the smaller population of women. Number 2634 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that if a more proportionate amount of money could be spent on creating a climate for more industry and good-paying jobs, history shows that crime, domestic violence, and sex abuse go down. All the various issues that cost so much to take care of these people are reduced simply by having opportunities for people to find a job. It distresses her that some of the money can't be used to create some sort of activity that keeps this from growing. In her ten years in the legislature, that issue has not been addressed or agreed on. It pains her to be in this position when she doesn't see where the money is going to come from to do this unless there is more economic activity in the state, she commented. MS. KNUTH agreed with Representative James and is glad that people recognize the problem. The single greatest predictor of whether someone will be in prison in his/her lifetime is whether he/she gets a high school diploma. A real focus ought to be to get all the kids through high school. Number 2727 CHAIR COGHILL agreed with Representative James that there is a need but disagreed that nothing has been done. He's been on the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee the past four years, and they've grappled with where to put resources. He refuses to believe they haven't addressed the problem; it is just that the problem grows as rapidly as it's worked on. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES retorted that it can be said that getting education for these children is the most important thing but said she thinks that the most important thing for these children is for their parents to have a job. Number 2780 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if there were any statistics on not getting a high school diploma and criminal activity. MS. KNUTH said she will get those for him. CHAIR COGHILL commented that HB 497 will have a struggle in the finance area because it is a tough budget year. Number 2826 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report HB 497 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 497 was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|