Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/28/2002 10:22 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2002
10:22 AM
TAPE HFC 02 - 67, Side A
TAPE HFC 02 - 67, Side B
TAPE HFC 02 - 68, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:22 AM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative John Harris
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Carl Moses
ALSO PRESENT
Susan Scudder, Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety; Patti Swenson,
Staff, Vice-Chair Bunde; Jennifer Yuhus, Staff,
Representative Masek; Ben Butler, Mayor, City of Whittier;
Charles Campbell, Juneau; Margot Margot Knuth, Assistant
Attorney General, Department of Corrections; Frank Prewitt,
Consultant, Cornell Corrections, Inc.; Susan Burke, Cornell
Corrections, Inc.;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Frank Smith; Marvin Wiebe, Cornell Corrections, Inc.; Bob
Loeffler, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of
Natural Resources; Jan Konigsberg, Alaska Public Water
Coalition, Anchorage; Jim Lecrone, PSEA, Anchorage; Don
Valesk, Anchorage; Dee Hubbard, Anchorage; John Duffy, Matsu
Borough; Pete Halgren, Delta Junction;
SUMMARY
HB 27 "An Act relating to the licensure and registration
of individuals who perform home inspections;
relating to home inspection requirements for
residential loans purchased or approved by the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; relating to
civil actions by and against home inspectors; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 27 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with two new fiscal
impact notes: REV and CED.
HB 332 "An Act extending the termination date of the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault;
and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 332 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with and previously
published fiscal notes: (3) DPS.
HB 421 "An Act relating to water use and appropriation."
CSHB 421 (RES) was REPORTED out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and two previously published
fiscal notes: HRES/DNR (1) and DNR (2).
HB 498 "An Act expressing legislative intent regarding
privately operated correctional facility space and
services; relating to the development and
financing of privately operated correctional
facility space and services; authorizing the
Department of Corrections to enter into an
agreement for the confinement and care of
prisoners in privately operated correctional
facility space; and providing for an effective
date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 332
"An Act extending the termination date of the Council
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and providing
for an effective date."
Vice-Chair Bunde, Sponsor, spoke in support of the
legislation. He explained that the legislation would extend
the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and
allow the executive director to their hire staff. He
acknowledged that an audit pointed out some problems in the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. He
emphasized that directors must have tools to do their jobs
and emphasized the importance of having supportive staff.
The Council has 8 staff members.
Representative Harris questioned the fiscal notes.
SUSAN SCUDDER, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY explained that
the fiscal notes reflect the proposed budget for the
Council.
PATTI SWENSON, STAFF, VICE-CHAIR BUNDE explained that the
fiscal note reflects the numbers proposed by the Governor's
budget.
Representative Hudson MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute work draft, 22-LS1290\J, 2/14/02. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report CSHB 332 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 332 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with and previously published
fiscal notes: (3) DPS.
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to the licensure and registration of
individuals who perform home inspections; relating to
home inspection requirements for residential loans
purchased or approved by the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation; relating to civil actions by and against
home inspectors; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, SPONSOR, provided information
on the fiscal note. The startup cost would be $64 thousand
dollars. The subsequent annual cost would be $58.5 thousand
dollars. The fiscal note used a conservative number of 100
new home inspector licenses. New home inspectors would be
added to the 2,716 specialty contractors. Specialty
contractors currently pay a $200 dollars biannual fee. There
would be an increase of approximately $47 dollars per
biannual fee. He clarified that home inspectors would pay
for their examination. The specialty contractor examine is
recorded in their fee. Home inspector examinations would be
offered by an outside entity.
Representative Hudson questioned the percentage of homes
bought through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC).
Representative Rokeberg noted that 47 percent of the homes
in Alaska are purchased through AFHC. The legislation would
cover any home inspection. The consumer would contract with
the home inspector.
Representative Lancaster clarified that only one home
inspector would be required for each home.
Representative John Davies clarified that the inspections
would not only be on new homes. Representative Rokeberg
observed that there are three different types of licenses
and different examination requirements fore each specialty.
Representative Lancaster MOVED to report CSHB 27 (FIN) out
of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 27 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two new fiscal impact notes: REV and
CED.
HOUSE BILL NO. 421
"An Act relating to water use and appropriation."
JENNIFER YUHUS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MASEK spoke in support
of the legislation, on behalf of the sponsor. Problems were
reveled within the Administration regarding the distributing
of water rights and the processing of applications. The
sponsor believes there should be a standardized process and
that people should have access to their records.
Representative Lancaster observed that the fiscal note is
only for one year. Ms. Yuhus explained that the department
received $300 thousand dollars for a five-year period to
address the 3,000-application backlog. The money has not
been completely expended and the positions have not all been
hired. The sponsor believes that the cost of the legislation
could be taken from the appropriation.
BOB LOEFFLER, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WATER, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES testified via teleconference in support
of the legislation. He noted that information is made public
to anyone who asks. The funding would revamp their computer
systems so that regional information, which is difficult to
collect, would be available to the public. He noted that
they have funds available in the current fiscal year [due to
vacancy], but expect to expend all of the funds in the next
year.
In response to a question by Representative Lancaster, Mr.
Loeffler clarified that the information would be free.
In response to a question by Representative John Davies, Mr.
Loeffler explained that the one-time cost would cover
programs to set up the system. The incremental cost would be
part of maintaining the computer system. If all the
positions were hired and the increment denied there would
not be sufficient funding to hire the programmer.
Mr. Loeffler noted that all of the funds go to a
reimbursable services agreement. They already have their
office equipment.
JAN KONIGSBERG, ALASKA PUBLIC WATERS COALITION, ANCHORAGE
testified via teleconference in support of the legislation.
Representative Hudson MOVED to report CSHB 421 (RES) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 421 (RES) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and two previously published fiscal notes:
HRES/DNR (1) and DNR (2).
HOUSE BILL NO. 498
"An Act expressing legislative intent regarding
privately operated correctional facility space and
services; relating to the development and financing of
privately operated correctional facility space and
services; authorizing the Department of Corrections to
enter into an agreement for the confinement and care of
prisoners in privately operated correctional facility
space; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Harris, Sponsor, testified in support of HB
498. He explained that the legislation (known as the
Whittier prison bill) was introduced because the city of
Whittier has been concerned about economic development in
their area. He observed that there have been previous
attempts at the private prison concept in other areas of the
state. These attempts failed during public votes. The
residents of the city of Whittier seem to be overwhelmingly
in support of the process and facility. The city is in close
proximity to Anchorage.
BEN BUTLER, MAYOR, CITY OF WHITTIER testified in support of
HB 498. He observed that the city of Whittier followed the
Kenai proposal. The city is looking for ways to diversify
its economy. The city held public hearings and sent mailers
to residents to make sure that they were aware of the
proposal. The city received 85 (out of 100) signatures on
the petition [in support of the prison]. The proximity to
Anchorage makes Whittier a good location. There is plenty of
land for the project. A competitive bid procurement process
has been followed. He discussed the procurement process,
which utilized a private billing contractor, CPA firm and a
local resident to review the Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) sent by the city of Whittier. There were two
respondents out of four. The city accepted the
recommendation from the group that reviewed the proposals.
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Mayor
Butler explained that the city has signed a contract with
the private contractor (Cornell Corrections, Inc.)
Representative Croft asked for more information regarding
the selection of Cornell Corrections Inc (Cornell). He asked
if there was competitive criterion on costs. Mayor Butler
stated that cost was considered. Representative Croft asked
for the criteria used by the subcommittee. Mayor Butler
responded that he would provide the evaluation forms that
were used.
Representative Lancaster questioned why the proposal was
changed from an 800 to 1,200-bed proposal. Mayor Butler
noted that economy of scale was the major factor; plus the
fact that the state has indicated that there is a need for
1,200+ beds in the state.
Representative Lancaster questioned what would be the result
of the passage of the legislation. Mayor Butler explained
that there would be an intergovernmental agreement with the
Department of Corrections, the city of Whittier and the
selected contractor.
Representative Hudson questioned why the community would
want to encourage the existence of a prison in its vicinity.
Mayor Butler pointed out that the facility would not be
located in the most attractive part of town. He stressed the
need to encourage economic prosperity and provide jobs in
Whittier. Most jobs are seasonal. The city lacks an economic
base. Opening the prison could also result in lower fares
through the tunnel.
Representative Whitaker asked for further details regarding
the competitive procurement process.
Mr. Butler explained that the City of Whittier sent out a
RFQ to five different correctional companies. Of the five:
one did not respond at all; two stated that they did not
want to participate; and two responded. Their Anchorage
attorneys set up an evaluation team to review the two
responses. The group evaluated both proposals and came back
to the city Council with a recommendation, which was
adopted. He noted that Cornell Corrections, Inc. and CCA
responded to the RFQ.
Representative Croft observed that the legislation states:
In the agreement with the City of Whittier, the
commissioner of corrections shall require that the city
procure one or more private third-party operators
through a competitive procurement process. The
procurement requirements of this subsection are
satisfied if the City of Whittier in exercising its
powers under AS 29.35.010(15) for procurement of land,
design, construction, and operation of a facility,
follows its municipal ordinances and resolutions and
procurement procedures.
Representative Croft asked for more information regarding
the city's procedures. Mayor Butler responded that there are
requirements for competitive solicitations and competitive
bids with time allocations for bid proposals. Their
attorneys followed the municipal code.
Representative Croft expressed concern that the legislation
only requires the city to follows their normal process.
Co-Chair Mulder spoke in support of the city of Whittier's
competitive bid procurement process. He felt that the city's
procurement process would reflect state requirements.
Representative Hudson observed that the city of Whittier has
authority to issue bonds and questioned the city's history.
Mayor Butler noted that the city has never issued bonds.
Representative Hudson questioned how the 1,200-bed limit was
reached. He noted that the state is underwriting the bond.
Mayor Butler clarified that there is no added cost with the
land. The facility would be located on railroad land under
city control. The city has a 105-year lease with the
railroad for the land. The railroad does not object to the
proposal.
TAPE HFC 02 - 67, Side B
Representative Hudson noted that the city aught to own the
land. He suggested that the legislature should be able to
transfer railroad land to the city of Whittier.
Co-Chair Mulder clarified that the problem with railroad
land exists throughout the state of Alaska. There are
several hotels that have been built on railroad land that
are similar in nature, in that a private company owns them
and they are leased. Representative Hudson pointed out that
the railroad is getting money [from those situations]. He
questioned if the railroad would receive money from the land
the prison would sit on. Co-Chair Mulder acknowledged that
the railroad would not receive money for the land.
Representative Hudson explained that he raised the question
because the railroad will not receive money and questioned
why the land should not be transferred to the city. He noted
it legislature could transfer the land within the bill.
Mayor Butler explained that the city has attempted to
receive non-essential railroad lands. He stressed that
Whittier is a railroad town. He maintained that having to
lease or get permission from the railroad [for land use] has
stifled economic growth. The city would very much like to
have nonessential railroad lands deeded to the city of
Whittier.
Representative Hudson stated that he would like to see
something positive happen for the city of Whittier. He
pointed out that the city of Whittier would have the
responsibility. [This would be offset] by the possibility
that there would be greater usage of the tunnel, which would
decrease costs and increase access to the town. The state
has spent millions of dollars to provide access. He stressed
that he would like to see [the prison] become an asset of
value and the leasing of the land to be included as part of
the pay back. He maintained that the state aught to provide
[the city] some remuneration for the value of the land.
Mayor Butler responded that the city would welcome any
action on land transfers. Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that
[land transfers] would require a second bill because of the
questions raised as to whether the transfer is an
appropriation. He did not believe a land transfer would
constitute an appropriation.
Representative Lancaster questioned how the number of 1,200
beds was derived. Mayor Butler explained that the bed count
was partially the economy of scale; to make the dollar
amount that the state put on it work. The Department of
Corrections needs 1,200 beds to cover the prisoners in out-
of-state facilities and the additional beds needed in other
facilities.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out that the Governor's proposal
calls for 1,260 beds. He observed that the Governor's plan
states that it hopes to bring the Arizona prisoners home
through the development of those beds. He noted that prisons
are a little like roads: "you don't necessarily build them
for today or even tomorrow, but [for] five - ten years down
the line."
Representative John Davies observed that the city of
Whittier entered into a contract and questioned under what
terms they could "walked away from" the contract.
Mayor Butler assured Representative Davies that the city
included escape clauses. [The city could break the contract]
if the bill does not go through or the Department of
Corrections does not sign an agreement, without liability.
Co-Chair Mulder pointed out the need for broad public
support. Mayor Butler noted that the city of Whittier held
public hearings. The city also circulated a petition in
support of the prison. The opposition to the proposal is
from outside sources. He maintained that no one in Whittier
is against the project. The only opposition is from the
Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA) union. The PSEA
has sent flyers against the prison to the citizens of
Whittier. He maintained that the flyers have helped the city
of Whittier's battle because the citizens of Whittier are
not union employees. They are people that are out of jobs or
do not have the benefits of a year around job. The city has
not responded to the union's flyers.
Representative John Davies stressed concern that a new
prison does not prevent needed beds from being built in
Fairbanks.
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Bunde, Mayor Butler
observed that the city has not had a project the size of the
prison, with the exception of the road. He observed that
persons that opposed the road construction now support the
prison proposal.
Mayor Butler reiterated that there is support for the
project in the community. He acknowledged that there have
been concerns by citizens, who wanted to make sure their
concerns were addressed in the contract and the procurement
process. He estimated that 85 - 90 percent of the residents
support the prison. He stressed that the town is ready to
grow and wants the economic prosperity that the project
would bring. He noted that 110 people voted in the last
election. He received 85 signatures on the petition [in
support of the prison].
Representative Lancaster questioned if there would be a
negative affect on the tourism industry. Mayor Butler did
not anticipate any negative affects on the tourism industry.
Representative Hudson questioned if a dollar return to the
city of Whittier had been estimated. Mayor Butler explained
that the city would receive approximately $200 thousand
dollars from the prison company select, in recognition of
the impact to the town. The city can include the prisoner
count in their municipal assistance and revenue sharing
calculations. The city of Whittier's municipal assistance
and revenue sharing would be increased from $26 thousand
dollars to $85 thousand dollars. The city estimates it would
receive a total of $300 - $350 thousand dollars with the
additional growth in sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
Mayor Butler responded to questions by Representative
Hudson. He noted that the tunnel cost is dependent on
volume. The city has 17 hours a day access through summer;
winter is less than 10 hours a day. If the prison were
opened the tunnel would be opened 17 hours a day, year-
round. Increased volume could reduce the cost of using the
tunnel to $5 dollars; the cost is dependent on volume. He
acknowledged that Whittier does not have the capability to
handle all the housing needed to facilitate the prison in
Whittier. The city is 20 minutes from Girdwood and 45
minutes from Anchorage. He added that the prison would
stimulate housing and allow the community to develop. The
railroad owns the vast majority of the land, which inhibits
development. They would also be able to count prisoners for
federal census.
Representative Harris asked if the Alaska Federation of
Natives had been involved. Mayor Butler noted that they had
not addressed the Council, but are working with Cornell. to
offer programs that benefit the Native community for
rehabilitation. Close to 40 percent of the prisoners out-of-
state is Native.
In response to a question by Representative Harris, Mr.
Butler observed that Cornell would enter into a
project/labor agreement with the unions. The project would
be built with union labor.
FRANK PREWITT, CONSULTANT, CORNELL CORRECTIONS, INC.
provided information to the Committee. He observed that
under current state law the Department of Corrections could
buy services directly from a private company through the
competitive bid process. The Department of Corrections can
also buy beds through another government entity, which have
purchased their beds through their own bid process. The
disadvantage of the first option is the state's power of
eminent domain. The state can build a prison where and
whenever it wants and solicit a private company to manage
it. The state can also solicit private companies to build
and operate prisons that they own; thereby avoiding problems
of deferred maintenance and other problems associated with
ownership. The problem is that when a state builds a prison,
or buys the service from a private company, the local public
process is generally circumvented. The Administration has
argued that the disadvantage of the Whittier process is that
the state does not control where the prison is built and who
builds and operates the prison.
Mr. Prewitt pointed out that the Department of Corrections
does not have to buy the service unless it meets the state's
standards, conditions and requirements. State requirements
are met through the intergovernmental agreement that would
be negotiated between the city of Whittier and the
Department of Corrections. If the standards and conditions
can't be met then the prison simply doesn't happen. The
state's needs are apparent. Standards are not unique.
Mr. Prewitt maintained that the advantage of the proposal
[contained in HB 498] is that the local community has a
choice and has chosen to participate. He emphasized that it
is unusual for the state to establish community support.
Mr. Prewitt observed that there are five prison bills before
the legislature that represent two different approaches. Two
of the bills seek to establish the Administration's plan. He
asserted that the Administration's plan does not return
prisoners from Arizona. He maintained that the Whittier plan
would return prisoners, provide in-state flexibility and
help control the Department of Corrections' operating
budget.
Mr. Prewitt observed that the Administration would spread
1,269 beds throughout the state for a total capital cost of
$239 million dollars. He noted that a couple of years ago
the state's per capita daily average was $111 dollars. At
$111 dollars a day per inmate the state's plan would
increase the department's budget by $50 million dollars, not
including debt service. He estimated the combined capital
and operating per diem rate at over $150 dollars a day per
bed. The Whittier plan adds the same amount of beds for
$110 million dollars with a combined capital and operating
cost of $89 - $91 dollars per day, which is the legislative
ceiling. This does not include major medical, some of the
Department of Corrections' administrative costs, or prisoner
transportation, but none of these costs are likely to exceed
$15 dollars a day. He concluded that the difference is $150
dollars a day per bed [under the Administration's plan] and
$105 dollars a day per bed [Whittier plan]. Both plans are
designed to meet state and national standards. He observed
that the Administration's plan provides jails and prison
services under one roof and intentionally avoids the economy
of scale by duplicating programs and services throughout the
state. He stressed that jails are meant to hold prisoners
from the point of arrest through sentencing or appeal and
sometimes for short-term misdemeanor offenders (as long as
12 months, usually less). Jails are meant to have safe and
secure confinement: no thrills, no programs. He maintained
that long-term misdemeanants and felons should be
transferred. Most state and federal offenders are
transferred to central prisons that are designed to meet the
security and program needs of those defenders. It is at the
end of the sentence, a year or so before release, that long-
term prisoners transfer back to their communities, to pre-
release facilities. There are community residential centers
in Bethel, Nome, and Anchorage. Pre-release centers are
designed to help felons to reintegrate into their
communities through a supervised program. He asserted that
the Administration's plan swims against affordable practice.
Affective prison programs have to have access to mental
health services, adult education, vocational training, and
substance abuse services. All of the resources go through
private sector contracts and employees of the Department of
Corrections. Resources are in limited supply in many Alaskan
communities. Duplicating programs for offenders in regional
facilities throughout the state is inefficient, cost
prohibitive and ineffective because it is difficult to
maintain quality control and program continuity without
resources. He maintained that it is more efficient and
effective to house long-term prisoners in larger centralized
prisons near communities that have abundant resources. A
12,000 bed is about one-half the size of these types of
facilities around the nation. It is twice the size of the
proposed expansion of the Spring Creek Correctional Center.
He maintained that Whittier would be a modest size prison
that would capture the economy of scales that are necessary
to sustain cost effective programs.
Mr. Prewitt maintained that there has been an impasse for
the last seven years. He asserted that the contract to send
prisoners out-of-state was never meant to be a long-term
plan for the state of Alaska. It was intended to be a
stopgap measure.
Representative John Davies asked why it is not appropriate
to send prisoners out-side the state if it is appropriate to
send them to a centralized long-term facility.
Mr. Prewitt acknowledged that there are some benefits to
retaining prisoners in-the-state in order to have access to
families and friends. He noted that it is cheaper to travel
from Bethel to Anchorage than from Bethel to Arizona. He
noted that if cost were the only factor that it would make
sense to keep prisoners outside. Some of the best programs
are delivered in Arizona. There is also a cultural issue for
the Native offenders, which account for 40 percent Alaskan
offenders in Arizona.
Mr. Prewitt summarized that the issue is whether there is
support for a regional expansion plan, where correctional
services are duplicated throughout the state; or to limit
regional services to jail and pre-release services and
develop larger facilities closer to the resources or
programs. He asserted that the impasse has created one of
the worse situations in corrections that he has seen. Mr.
Prewitt referred to the number of days that facilities are
over capacity. The system is operating at 108 percent over
its maximum capacity. He claimed, "bad things happen" with
overcrowding.
Mr. Prewitt stated that the question is not whether beds are
needed in the state. The question is where and what types of
beds are needed. The state has an overabundance of medium
custody inmates. The state wants to add 270 medium security
beds in Palmer.
TAPE HFC 02 - 68, Side A
Mr. Prewitt maintained that the department needs all 1,200
beds proposed by the Whittier plan, but emphasized that more
beds are needed throughout the state. Bethel is filled with
pretrial offenders. Youthful offenders need to be separated
from adult offenders. There is a large waiting list for
youthful offender beds. The Whittier prison does not assume
to meet all of the state's needs. It is difficult to
determine what the regional demand is.
Mr. Prewitt referred to sentenced versus un-sentenced
offenders. Anvil Mountain, Nome is a 100-bed facility. He
observed that on a particular day Anvil Mountain had 42
sentenced offenders and 61 un-sentenced offenders. He
maintained that any long-term sentenced felons should be in
a large facility with adequate programs.
Mr. Prewitt acknowledged the difficulty of determining
statewide bed demand, but stressed the difference in cost
between a medium security bed (Whittier Plan) and a bed in
South-central operated by the state of Alaska. The combined
average daily operating costs for the Wildwood Correctional
Center and the Kenai Correctional Center is $89 dollars a
day, which includes inmate programs, administrative and
support, and statewide indirect less major medical. He
compared the Department and Whittier Plan costs. The
Department of Corrections would supply 473 medium security
beds for a capital cost of $94.5 million dollars. The
Whittier Plan offers 12,000 beds for $110 million dollars.
If you amortize the state's cost over the 25 years proposed
by the Whittier Plan there would be a combined daily
operating/capital cost of $125 dollars a day per bed. The
Whittier Plan's combined operating/capital costs would be
$89 - $91 dollars a day. The Whittier Plan may not solve all
the Department of Corrections' needs, but it would return
$118 million dollars to the to Alaska economy; create over
1,000 jobs; and require the purchase of materials associated
with operations for a 25 year period. He noted that 1,200
prisoners can "eat a lot of potatoes" and consume a lot of
contract services. The plan would mitigate the state's
exposure to prison overcrowding. The state was relieved from
court oversight based on the state's commitment that the
overcrowding conditions were resolved. The Whittier Plan
would return prisoners to Alaska and add value to the
tunnel.
Mr. Prewitt spoke to overrepresentation of Natives in Alaska
state correctional systems. Seven percent of the male
population in Alaska is Alaskan Native men, yet they
represent 37% of the prison population. There is a crisis
in that population. The Department has not offered services
specifically for Alaska Native offenders. The proposed
facility hopes to break the cycle of recidivism, which
predominately concerns alcohol, by allowing the Native
community access to the facility and development of
programs. There is a teaming agreement between Cornell and
the Alaska Native Brotherhood. He maintained that Cornell is
a treatment-oriented company and stressed that there will be
a commitment to the Native community, which allows an open
door policy to the degree that it doesn't compromise
security. The difference between a private and public
facility is flexibility. There are only a certain amount of
programs that can exist under the $89 dollar a day rate, but
they hope to supplement Native programs through the help of
the Native community and organizations.
HB 498 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|