Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/16/2003 09:04 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 16, 2003
9:04 AM
TAPES
SFC-03 # 54, Side A
SFC 03 # 54, Side B
SFC 03 # 55, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gary Wilken convened the meeting at approximately 9:04 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Con Bunde, Vice Chair
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Also Attending: TOM CHAPPLE, Director, Division of Air and Water
Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation; JOHN KUTERBACH,
Program Manager, Air Permits, Division of Air and Water Quality,
Department of Environmental Conservation; MARK ANTRIM,
Commissioner, Department of Corrections; JERRY BURNETT, Director,
Division of Administrative Services, Department of Corrections; DEE
HUBBARD, Sterling Resident and Citizen Activist;
Attending via Teleconference: *teleconference participants
testifying on the FY 04 Operating Budget are listed in the body of
the minutes in the order they testified* From an off net location:
MARILYN CROCKET, Deputy Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association;
From Anchorage: STEVE MULDER, Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division, Department of Law; JIM
LECRONE, Retired Correctional Officer, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 75-APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 76-APPROP:MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
The Committee heard public testimony and the bill was held in
Committee.
HB 160-EMISSION CONTROL PERMIT PROGRAM
The Committee heard from the Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Department of Law. The bill moved from
Committee.
SB 65-CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EXPANSION
The Committee heard from the Department of Corrections and members
of the public. An amendment was adopted and the bill was held in
Committee.
HB 59-CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES
This bill was scheduled but not heard.
Senator Olson introduced Close-up participants visiting from
communities in his election district.
CS FOR SS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 75(FIN) am(brf sup maj fld)
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and loan
program expenses of state government, for certain programs,
and to capitalize funds; and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 76(FIN)
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and capital
expenses of the state's integrated comprehensive mental health
program; and providing for an effective date."
Offnet public testimony
ROGER JENKINS testified via teleconference from an offnet site in
Nikolai to suggest a wholesale sales tax.
FRANK KELTY, Resource Analyst, City of Unalaska, testified via
teleconference from an offnet location regarding the Department of
Public Safety patrol vessels and the areas they oversee. He spoke
to the importance of the fisheries these vessels protect.
RICK KINGIKOWSKY, Member, Unalaska City School Board, testified via
teleconference from an offnet location in Unalaska about reductions
to education funding. He asserted that school districts across the
State have made significant efforts to meet accountability
requirements.
GEORGE HILLER testified via teleconference from an offnet location
in Central to the importance of the Power Cost Equalization program
to rural residents. He warned of the consequences of failing to
subsidize the program.
ANDY DURNY, Employee, City of Nulatto, testified via teleconference
from an offnet site in Nulatto that permanent fund should be
utilized for state services rather than paying annual dividends to
state residents.
DR. MICHAEL DICKENS, Superintendent, Skagway City School District,
testified via teleconference from an offnet site in Skagway about
the budget for education and the impact reduced funding would have
on students.
Senator Taylor asked if the witness's suggestion is to include the
Learning Opportunity Grants (LOG) in the education foundation
formula.
Dr. Dickens agreed this was an option.
This concluded the public testimony for these bills.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 160(FIN)
"An Act relating to the emission control permit program;
relating to fees for that program and to the accounting of
receipts deposited in the emission control permit receipts
account; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this bill, introduced at the request of
the Governor, "establishes standardized air permit conditions based
on best management practices. The legislation differentiates
between major and minor sources air pollution and focuses the
Department of Environmental Conservation accordingly. Senate
companion bill 116 passed out of Senate Resources with a
recommendation of seven 'do passes'."
TOM CHAPPLE, Director, Division of Air and Water Quality,
Department of Environmental Conservation, testified that the
Governor is committed to resource development as well as protecting
the environment. Mr. Chapple asserted these are not exclusive
goals. He told of a legal dispute "to ensure that Alaska's rights
are not eroded", relating to a mining operation with the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is currently under
consideration by the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Chapple stressed this technical legislation would not change
the air quality standards relative to the protection of public
health, but would rather change the permitting process "to be more
responsive to our economic development, while also preserving our
excellent air quality."
Mr. Chapple stated this legislation would change the terminology
used in Alaska to match national terminology. He exampled
"contaminant", a term utilized in the State, would be replaced with
"pollutant", a national term. He expressed this would simplify the
process of adopting federal "rules" and increases understanding by
Department staff, the regulating community and consultants. He
predicted this would result in efficiencies.
Mr. Chapple continued that this bill distinguishes between major
and minor sources of pollution for the purposes of permitting,
pointing out that current State statute addresses all pollution as
major sources. He listed major sources as oil and gas development,
larger mines, power plants in most cities and rural hub
communities, military bases and seafood processing plants. He then
listed minor sources as many rural community power plants, asphalt
plants, rock crushers, and fuel storage tanks. He explained that
this bill would allow the Department to streamline the permitting
process for minor sources and implement standardized conditions. He
predicted this would also improve efficiencies.
Mr. Chapple furthered that this legislation would change the
structure of permit fees, to "accomplish more predictable and
reliable fees."
Mr. Chapple informed that this legislation represents the
recommendations of a working group comprised of "the oil and gas
community, mining industry, military, seafood processors and power
industries" made the previous summer.
Senator Olson understood the intent to streamline the permitting
process. He asked how this would affect operations of existing
industries.
Mr. Chapple replied that this bill would result in timelier
permitting. He commented on the irony that the EPA has recently
adopted changes to its permitting laws that are consistent with the
permits the State granted to the mining operation in the case
currently before the US Supreme Court.
Senator Hoffman asked if this legislation addresses the sulfur
emissions from aircraft.
Mr. Chapple replied that this bill is unrelated to aircraft.
Senator Taylor referenced Sections 33 and 34 on page 17 of the
committee substitute, surmising that these provisions would create
a dedicated fund within the Department. He cited the language
stipulating that all funds generated from permit fees may only be
utilized to cover the "reasonable direct and indirect" costs
required to support the permit program. He asked if this would also
provide receipt authority to expend those funds without legislative
authority.
Mr. Chapple responded that receipt authority would be requested
though the operating budget process. He noted this bill changes the
fund management and accounting structure. He reported that the
Clean Air Protection fund was appropriated $2.7 million for the
current fiscal year to support the program.
Senator Taylor asked how this legislation would improve efficiency
in issuance of permits.
Mr. Chapple answered that by streamlining the process to better
match the federal permitting guidelines for larger industries,
uncertainties would be removed and dialog improved. He noted that
the Department has reviewed the processes employed in other states
to identify efficient methods. He furthered that the Department has
not been timely in permitting due to inefficiencies and inadequate
staffing levels. He informed that to improve timeliness,
contractors would be utilized during periods when more permits are
pending.
Senator Taylor requested a quantitative example of the length of
time required to issue a permit under the existing statute compared
to the length of time required under the proposed statute.
Mr. Chapple listed the construction permit, which is required
before construction begins, and the operating permit, which is
issued after construction is completed and pertains to ongoing
operations. He reported that construction permits are usually
issued 254 days after application and that the goal is to reduce
the amount of time to between 90 and 110 days. He remarked that
this bill, the subsequent regulatory changes, as well as adequate
staffing assignments would allow this goal to be reached. He
expressed this would be "responsive to resource development and our
business needs in Alaska."
Senator Hoffman asked if a sectional analysis is available for this
legislation. He also asked for an explanation of the proposed
terminology change of "facility" to "stationary sources".
JOHN KUTERBACH, Program Manager, Air Permits, Division of Air and
Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, explained
the change in definition from "facility" to "stationary sources" is
intended to make the State terminology consistent with the federal
terminology as well as that of "most other jurisdictions". He
pointed out that the federal definition does not specify property
as a designator for the facility and also considers a stationary
source using the standard industrial code in determining whether a
permit is required, which differ from the State definition. He
stated that this differences hamper the Department's ability to use
federal case law and decisions rendered in other jurisdictions when
making determinations in Alaska.
Mr. Kuterbach assured that most facilities that currently require a
major permit would continue to require such, although technical
difference would occur in the grouping of those operations. He was
unable to predict which specific facilities would have permit
requirement changes.
Senator Taylor opined that differences in permit types are
insignificant, given the limited industrial development in the
State and therefore questioned the length of time required to issue
permits.
Mr. Chapple assured that not every permit issuance requires 254
days, giving examples of general permits for asphalt plants and
rock crushers that are handled rapidly. He stated that the longer
time periods are related to more complex projects, such as a mine
or oil and gas development needing a Review for Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality. He stressed that industry
representatives are aware of these time requirements and plan
accordingly.
Senator Taylor asked if the permits in question also apply to those
"sources that move", such as a large ship.
Mr. Chapple answered that this permitting rule generally applies to
stationary sources with exceptions including portable oilrigs and
portable asphalt plants. He stated that this program does not cover
ships unless that ship is part of a permanent facility, such as a
near shore-based seafood processing plant. He noted that the State
is prohibited from imposing air quality regulations to aircraft,
which are regulated by the EPA.
Senator Hoffman asked whether fees would be imposed or increased as
a result of this legislation.
Mr. Chapple affirmed that fees would change. He informed that the
current hourly rates for "a direct service on a permit review"
would become a flat rate, although he expected the amount paid for
a permit would be reduced due to the efficiencies gained. He
continued that emission fees could increase. He told of significant
discussions on this matter.
Senator Hoffman asked the current fee amounts.
Mr. Chapple listed the hourly fee of $78, qualifying that he was
unable to predict the amount of the proposed fee. He indicated that
the total fees of average projects would be reviewed to determine a
reasonable amount for the flat fee. He explained a correlation
between the amount of emissions measured and the amount of the
emissions fee imposed. He reported that because emissions have been
reduced the fees paid have also reduced, and although this is
positive, the amount of revenue collected does not cover the
operating costs of the program.
Senator Olson asked why these changes were not implemented earlier
to avoid the "dire straits" of promoting resource development.
Mr. Chapple informed that the original statute was created nine
years prior in 1993 and that the permitting procedures were adopted
five years ago. He stated that three years ago serious problems
were identified and internal reviews and benchmark analyses of
other states were conducted.
Senator B. Stevens asked if the designation of major or miner
project was applied to both the construction permit and the
operating permit.
Mr. Kuterbach replied that only major projects would require both
an operating and a construction permit. The minor permit program
would apply to the construction and operation of minor sources or
minor modifications to a major source.
Senator B. Stevens clarified that major sources are governed by
different regulations than minor sources.
Mr. Chapple affirmed.
AT EASE 9:43 AM / 9:43 AM
Senator Hoffman referenced Section 23 of the committee substitute
and asked what the proposed changes would accomplish. The language
on page 11, lines 18 - 26 read as follows.
Sec. 23 AS 46.14.200 is amended to read:
Sec. 46.14.200. Review of permit action. A person
who has a private, substantive, legally protected
interest under state law that may be adversely affected
by the permit actions, the owner or operator, or, if a
public comment process is required or solicited, a person
who participated in the public comment process may
request an adjudicatory hearing under the department's
adjudicatory hearing procedures. After the issuance of an
adjudicatory hearing decision, a party to the hearing may
obtain judicial review of that decision as provided in
the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure.
New Text Underlined
Mr. Chapple relayed that it was "envisioned" that some of the minor
permits would not have a public comment process. Therefore, he
stated that this language would retain the right to appeal for
those projects that involve a public comment process.
Senator Hoffman clarified that under current statute, public
comment is required and the proposed language allows the Department
to determine whether the public would have an opportunity to
comment.
Mr. Chapple affirmed.
Co-Chair Green offered a motion to report the bill from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
MARILYN CROCKET, Deputy Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association,
testified via teleconference from an off net location to emphasize
this legislation represents the recommendations of the stakeholder
group that met to address the permitting issue. She stated that the
Association supports the bill.
Senator Taylor noted that the provision of Section 23 provides
"jurisdictional grant of opportunity" for stakeholders and asked if
it also provides an individual the right to request a public
comment hearing.
STEVE MULDER, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section,
Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage, and agreed the Section provides the right to
request a hearing. However, he emphasized that the requestor of the
hearing must demonstrate that a decision on the issuance of the
permit would impact him. He clarified that the "commenter" is not
required to have ownership interest in the property but rather
"could have standing if they're an adjacent property owner or
they're a user of parklands in the vicinity."
Senator Taylor characterized those who own neighboring property as
having a legally protected interest and has "every right to be
there" as a truly affected party in the matter. He compared this to
others, who occasionally visit a nearby park, and he determined
these parties do not have the same legal qualification.
Mr. Mulder spoke to Department regulations relating to adjudicatory
hearings and commissioner determinations of whether the requestor
is impacted and would be adversely affected by the Department's
decision.
Senator Taylor requested this information be provided to his office
and he indicated he might offer an amendment on the subject when
the bill is before the full Senate.
There was no objection and CS HB 160(FIN) MOVED from Committee with
zero fiscal note #2 from the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
AT EASE 9:51 AM / 9:52 AM
SENATE BILL NO. 65
"An Act authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter
into agreements with municipalities for new or expanded public
correctional facilities in the Fairbanks North Star Borough,
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Bethel, and the Municipality of
Anchorage."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this bill "authorizes the Department of
Corrections to enter into a twenty-five year lease agreement with
the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Mat-Su Borough, Bethel, and
Anchorage for a total of 1,160 beds at State correctional
facilities and a new State correctional facility."
Co-Chair Green referenced the sponsor statement.
SFC 03 # 54, Side B 09:53 AM
Co-Chair Green emphasized the need for additional prison beds. She
reminded of the over 650 prisoners currently housed outside the
State, which she characterized as "the least of the worries". She
explained the primary concern is the need for additional pretrial
facilities in Bethel and Fairbanks due to the significant expense
incurred in transporting prisoners between holding facilities and
court proceedings. She furthered that the need exists for a larger
complex, informing that that it has been determined the most
efficient method to accomplish this would be to expand existing
facilities.
Co-Chair Green shared that under the provisions of this legislation
local governments would issue bonds to generate revenue for the
construction costs. Under a release agreement with the Department
of Corrections, she stated that the Department would oversee the
operations of the facilities, as is the current practice.
Co-Chair Green remarked that Sutton is a preferable location for
expansion because of the existing minimum and medium security
facilities. The presence of the two facilities, she stated would
provide "immediate backup" in the event of additional needs or
emergencies. She furthered that inmates in this location are in
close proximity to hospitals, courts and the city of Anchorage "in
tolerable instances."
Co-Chair Green stressed that regardless of whether additional
prisons are constructed in Alaska the State would incur $40 to $45
million in debt within four years for the care of prisoners. She
explained this is due to the need to contract with private prisons
to house inmates. She pointed out that these funds "leave" the
State and that the funds could instead be used to employ Alaskans
if additional prison space were constructed in Alaska.
Co-Chair Green for adoption of CS SB 65, 23-LS0392\S as a working
draft.
There was no objection and the committee substitute was ADOPTED as
a working draft.
Amendment #1: This amendment lowers the maximum annual lease
payment for the proposed facility from $14,600 to $11,000 per bed.
The amended language in Section 1, on page 2 line 19 of the
committee substitute reads as follows.
(2) if construction of a new facility of a new
facility is authorized, the municipality shall initially own
the facility, and the state shall enter into a long-term
lease-purchase not to exceed 25 years with the municipality to
operate the facility and to receive ownership of the facility
at the end of the lease; the annual lease payment for a new
facility may not exceed $11,000 a bed;
Co-Chair Green moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Wilken objected for an explanation.
Co-Chair Green explained this amendment conforms the $11,000 amount
to language contained elsewhere in the committee substitute.
Senator B. Stevens asked how the reduction in the annual lease
payment was achieved.
Co-Chair Green replied this change is the result of an "overall
calculation".
MARK ANTRIM, Commissioner, Department of Corrections testified to
the ongoing process to make the project more cost efficient since
this bill was first introduced.
Senator B. Stevens asked why the maximum lease payment amount
authorized for the Bethel facility was not reduced as well.
JERRY BURNETT, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections, replied that although the estimated cost
to operate the facility in the Mat-Su area was reduced, the
facilities located in the other areas remains unchanged.
Senator B. Stevens clarified that the operating cost would be
$16,000 per bed annually at the Bethel facility, $14,600 at the
Anchorage location, and $11,000 at the Mat-Su location.
Mr. Burnett affirmed.
Senator B. Stevens asked why the Mat-Su and Anchorage amounts were
different.
Mr. Burnett responded that construction of the Anchorage facility
would be 100 percent federally funded.
Mr. Antrim furthered that the differing figures also reflect
different construction costs, as well as the different missions of
the three facilities. He explained that the Anchorage Jail is a
"booking facility" and that the "booking function" is the most
expensive activity of the Department.
Co-Chair Green added that examination of operating costs of
existing facilities across the State demonstrates variation
depending on the mission and size of a facility and type of inmates
housed. She pointed out that the Mat-Su facility is less costly to
operate because of the number of inmates housed and also because it
is not generally used as a pretrial facility.
Mr. Antrim informed that pretrial facilities must be build to be
indestructible, explaining that when first arrested, people are
most combative.
Senator Bunde referenced the spreadsheet titled "Department of
Corrections FY 2008 Prison Bed Cost Comparison" [copy on file],
which lists the costs of housing inmates at a private facility
located in Arizona, a private facility located in Alaska, and a
public prison located in Alaska. He compared the operating/capital
costs per day of $94 per inmate at a private prison in Alaska to
$51.36 operating costs for a public prison. He relayed that
arguments in favor of a private prison in Alaska attest that wages
would be lower than those paid by the State.
Senator Taylor asked the relation of construction expenses to
future lease amounts, asserting that operating expenses of other
facilities have not been based on construction costs.
Co-Chair Wilken the question applies to bill itself rather than to
the amendment.
Co-Chair Wilken removed his objection to the adoption of the
amendment and the amendment was ADOPTED.
Mr. Antrim gave testimony to the bill, referencing a handout,
titled "Department of Corrections" [copy on file]. He attested that
the State of Alaska is "approaching crisis level", noting that the
inmate facilities operate at 98 to 100 percent of capacity on any
given day. He reported that currently four of the 13 facilities
were over capacity. He opined that operating the facilities at
levels close to full capacity is advisable given that the State
also contracts with private facilities located outside the State to
house inmates.
Mr. Antrim indicated the chart titled "Inmate Population
Statistics," included in the handout, is based on an accurate
mathematical model, and the "Institution Activity 1997-2002" bar
graph shows the large number, over 30,000, of inmate "bookings"
each year. He informed that 20,000 of the bookings involve people
new to the Department system. He also pointed out the large number
of annual transfers, which he explained as movement between
facilities. He compared the amount of bookings and transfers to the
Average Daily Count, or static population of 3,055.
Mr. Antrim clarified the information on the bar graph for Co-Chair
Wilken, showing that in the year 2000, the Department conducted
over 30,000 admissions to all facilities, 22,000 transfers between
facilities and that the total population was over 3,000. He stated
that the average daily count has not changed significantly since no
new construction has occurred to increase capacity.
Senator Bunde asked why the significant number of transfers is
conducted.
Mr. Antrim stated that inmate transfers are the Department's effort
to "balance accounts" between the overcrowded facilities. He
detailed the daily process of analyzing the population of each
facility and determining which inmates would be transferred to
which locations to ensure each facility remain below its capacity
level. He reiterated this is an expensive process.
Senator Bunde surmised that the rate of recidivism is considerable
given that only 3,000 remain incarcerated.
Mr. Antrim agreed the recidivism rate is high.
Senator Bunde asked the percentage of inmates booked who are found
not guilty or are not sentenced to jail terms.
Mr. Antrim stated he would provide the information, noting the
number varies each year. He estimated approximately one-third of
the bookings are the result of recidivism based on the 20,000 new
bookings.
Senator Hoffman noted the Department has little control over the
number of bookings and the average daily count. He detailed the
process by which an inmate at the Bethel facility is transferred to
another facility due to overcrowding in Bethel, and subsequently
transferred back for each court hearing. He asked the expected
reduction of transfers that would result from the proposed
construction.
Mr. Antrim assured a reduction would occur, although he did not
know the exact amount. He explained that a large number of
transfers occur between the Bethel area facility and outlying
villages and that due to the large percentage of pretrial inmates,
those inmates must be transferred to Anchorage to create space for
new arrestees. He stated this situation exists in Nome as well. He
predicted that additional beds at the two facilities would reduce
the number of transfers necessary.
Senator Hoffman furthered that the expansion would also allow
correctional officers to remain at the facilities rather than
accompanying transferring inmates.
Mr. Antrim clarified that Alaska State Troopers execute the
transfers of pretrial detainees with the expenses incurred by the
Department of Public Safety. He indicated that the transfer figures
listed in the handout represent both pretrial detainees and other
inmates transferred to reduce overcrowding, which the Department of
Corrections is responsible for. He noted that the data in the
handout is intending to show the institutional activity and that
expansion of the Bethel and Nome facilities would result in cost
reductions to the Department of Public Safety as well as the
Department of Corrections.
Senator Taylor asked the percentage of the transfers that are
necessary to avoid overcrowding.
Mr. Antrim was uncertain and qualified that the number of necessary
transfers varies daily. He assured that efforts are made to conduct
transfers as "economically possible". He stated that almost half of
the inmates housed at the Lemon Creek Correctional Center in Juneau
are from the Anchorage area and are housed in Juneau to make space
available in Anchorage for inmates from other outlying areas. He
characterized the transfer process as "quite a shell game".
Senator Taylor commented on the amount of "juggling" required and
the "horrendous" cost of these efforts. He surmised the only
solution would be adequate facilities in each community and that
construction one or more large facility in one location would not
address the issue. He shared that when he served as a judge, he
chose community service over incarceration as sentencing to avoid
the expense of inmate transfer.
Senator Olson asked whether private prisons should be part of the
discussion.
Senator Bunde asked if the projected inmate population figures take
into account the aging of the general population as well as the
possibility that the population in Alaska could decline in the
event of a discontinuation of the permanent fund dividend program
or increased taxation.
Mr. Burnett explained that the data utilizes the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development demographic statistics as well as
further analysis conducted by the Department of Corrections.
Mr. Antrim next addressed a bar graph in the handout titled
"Comparison of Facilities with Varying Missions" listing the
different costs of four existing correctional facilities based on
their mission, and another page in the handout, which reads as
follows.
General Specs
Draft CS SB 65
· 1250 beds
· 1000 medium custody beds (est.)
· 190 close custody beds (est.)
· 60 maximum/segregation beds
Mr. Antrim spoke to other pages in the handout, which lists the
total cost of this legislation as $94.94: $51.36 for operating
costs, $22.92 for capital costs and $20.66 "other direct costs",
assuming a 25-year term in debt issue. He indicated these figures
apply to a proposed facility located in Sutton within the Mat-Su
Borough.
Senator Taylor asked how the capital costs were determined.
Mr. Burnett responded that the amounts are "based on the language
of SB 65 that would have the Department entering into a lease for
this facility". He clarified that the capital cost would be
included in the State's cost and that the estimated capital cost of
$22.92 assumes that the total capital cost for a 1250-bed facility
is $132 million financed with a revenue bond for 25 years.
Mr. Antrim indicated this is detailed on the page titled "Estimated
Debt Service."
Senator Taylor asked who would own the facility.
Mr. Burnett replied that under the provisions of this bill, the
facilities would be a lease/purchase arrangement with the State
paying the Borough lease and assuming ownership at the end of the
lease term.
Senator Taylor asked if the Borough would earn a profit from the
lease.
Mr. Burnett answered it would not.
Senator Bunde asked for a breakdown of the "other costs" indicated.
Mr. Burnett replied that the earlier referenced "Prison Bed Cost
Comparison" spreadsheet details these costs for inmate programs,
medical costs, administrative costs and statewide direct costs.
Senator Bunde calculated the medical costs at $11.88.
Mr. Burnett detailed the estimates of medical staffing levels
comparing differed scenarios.
Senator B. Stevens asked how the $22.92 capital cost listed on the
handout relates to Amendment #1.
Mr. Burnett responded that this amount only relates to the proposed
facility in the Mat-Su Borough.
Senator B. Stevens calculated the daily amount at $30.
Mr. Burnett stated he would review the figures, but pointed out the
$11,000 limit adopted in the amendment is a maximum amount.
Mr. Antrim interjected that the "Estimated Debt Service"
spreadsheet calculates $30.62 for a 15-year debt term, and stated
that if the term were lengthened, the daily amount would be
reduced.
Mr. Antrim then referenced the pages titled "Bethel Expansion",
"Fairbanks Expansion" and "Anchorage Expansion" as showing
justification for the projects. He noted the presence of a Superior
Court in Bethel, resulting in a number of pretrial detainees at
that location and the United States Marshall's expected increase in
the number of federal detainees housed in Anchorage and Juneau. He
also indicated diagrams illustrating the expansions in the
Fairbanks Correctional Center and the Anchorage Jail.
SFC 03 # 55, Side A 10:41 AM
JIM LECRONE, Retired Correctional Officer, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, about the dangers of prison
overcrowding.
DEE HUBBARD, Sterling Resident and Citizen Activist, testified in
person in support of this legislation.
Senator Olson asked of Mr. Lecrone ever feared for his life as a
result of overcrowding.
Mr. Lecrone informed that he was stationed in lesser security
facilities and although wrestling occurred, he never feared for his
life.
Senator Olson asked if weapons were therefore not found on inmates.
Mr. Lecrone corrected that inmates were found to have weapons and
described these weapons.
Senator Taylor requested a comparison of the number of escapees and
assaults committed by Alaskan inmates at the private prison in
Arizona versus public facilities in Alaska.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Gary Wilken adjourned the meeting at 10:51 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|