Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/20/2003 03:30 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2003
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Gretchen Guess
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSB 49 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 49 - No previous action to record.
SB 65 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Pamela Finley
Revisor of Statutes
Legislative Legal Counsel
Room 329 Terry Miller Building
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained SB 49
Senator Lyda Green
State Capitol, Room 516
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 65
Thomas H. Boutin
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered fiscal note questions on SB 65
Charles Campbell
Director of Corrections (Retired)
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 65
Marc Antrim
Commissioner-Designee
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 65
Jerry Burnett, Director
Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 65
Frank Pruitt
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 65
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-3, SIDE A
CHAIR ROBIN TAYLOR called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present were Senators
Dyson, Cowdery and Chair Taylor.
The first order of business was SB 49, 2003 Revisor's Bill.
SB 49-2003 REVISOR'S BILL
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, presented SB 49 and noted
the attached sectional analysis. The purpose of the bill is to
correct drafting errors so statutes align with policy previously
decided by the Legislature. This is an annual "clean up" bill.
She advised members she had two amendments to the bill. She
asked whether Chair Taylor had amendment \D.1 in his packet.
CHAIR TAYLOR replied he and other members did have the
amendment.
MS. FINLEY explained the recorders office was authorized to use
serial numbers for recording documents rather than book and page
numbers in 1996. Unfortunately, a number of other statutes that
should have been amended to reflect this change were not, so
this amendment simply adds a reference to a serial number as an
alternative to book and page numbers.
CHAIR TAYLOR called for a motion to adopt the amendment for
discussion purposes.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt amendment 23-LS0192\D.1
Finley 2/10/03 for discussion purposes.
SENATOR DYSON asked whether the amendment put in new Sections 11
and 12 making the old Section 11 Section 13.
MS. FINLEY replied that is correct.
CHAIR TAYLOR called for the record to reflect Senator Guess
joined the meeting.
SENATOR DYSON asked about concerns expressed by Stacie Kraly and
whether she objected to the amendment.
MS. FINLEY explained Ms. Kraly's memo is a separate matter from
\D.1 and she would explain that subsequently.
CHAIR TAYLOR informed Senator Guess amendment 1, designated
Finley 2/10/03 \D.1, was pending adoption. He then explained the
amendment to the Senator.
There being no objection, amendment 1, Finley 2/10/03 \D.1, was
adopted.
MS. FINLEY introduced amendment 2, which deletes Sections 60, 61
and 66. Those sections involve a name change from the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children to the federal program
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Apparently, when the
Department of Health and Social Services looked at the sections
again they realized there are substantive problems they want to
fix elsewhere. Changing the name would actually cause them more
difficulties.
CHAIR TAYLOR called for the record to reflect Senator Hoffman
joined the meeting.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked for a motion to amend by removing the three
sections
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt amendment 2 to remove
Sections 60,61 and 66 from 23-LS0192\D.
There being no objection, amendment 2 was adopted.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked whether there were additional amendments.
MS. FINLEY replied she had nothing further.
CHAIR TAYLOR thanked Ms. Finley and expressed gratitude for her
excellent work.
There being no further testimony on SB 49, Chair Taylor called
for a motion to move the bill from committee.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 49 (STA) from
committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection it was so ordered.
SB 65-CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EXPANSION
CHAIR TAYLOR announced the next matter of business to come
before the committee was SB 65 and noted a significant number of
people were waiting to testify on the bill. He informed members
that both the Departments of Corrections (DOC) and Revenue (DOR)
prepared fiscal notes.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, prime sponsor of SB 65, gave the following
introduction to SB 65:
The need for additional prison beds in Alaska has
been recognized by the Legislature for a number of
years. Currently, there are about 650 Alaskan
prisoners being held in facilities outside of Alaska.
The money that leaves Alaska to pay for the housing
of these prisoners provides jobs and economic
activity in Arizona instead of Alaska.
Senate Bill 65 provides legislative authorization for
the expansion of state prisons by local governments.
Under the provisions of SB 65, local governments would
finance the construction of new prison facilities and
additional beds at facilities currently owned by the
state. The State of Alaska would then enter into
long-term leases and operate the facilities as part of
the state correctional system. This financing
mechanism allows the state to acquire facilities with
no upfront capital costs. It benefits both the state
and local economies with construction jobs and long-
term jobs in the facilities.
The need for additional prison beds in Alaska is
virtually uncontested. However, the location of
facilities, the method of financing the construction
and who will operate the new facilities all raise
issues. In 1998, the Legislature authorized the
construction of a privately constructed and operated
prison with a minimum of 800 beds in Delta Junction.
The prison was not built. In 2001, the Legislature
passed HB 149, which provided for construction of a
minimum of 800 private prison beds on the Kenai
Peninsula. Again, the prison was not built. I
believe it is time to go in a new direction in order
to finally address this chronic and increasing prison
bed space problem.
SB 65 provides a long-term solution to Alaska's prison
bed space problem. The proposed expansions to existing
facilities in Bethel, Fairbanks and Anchorage (federal
prisoner unit expansion) will provide relief to the
most chronically over-crowded regional hubs. The new
1,200-bed facility will provide the most cost-
effective in-state solution to bringing Alaska's
prisoners home from Arizona, relieving prison bed
over-crowding issues in other regions of the state, as
well as providing additional bed space for the state's
projected prisoner population increases.
I ask for your support and swift passage of SB 65.
SENATOR GUESS noted letters of support from the Mat-Su area and
asked where the communities of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Bethel
stand on the legislation.
SENATOR GREEN said information would be forthcoming from Bethel.
She thought the issue is still under discussion in the Fairbanks
community; she said it is her understanding that Fairbanks
currently supports SB 65. She was unable to say whether
Anchorage would be supporting SB 65. She explained the prison
addition in Anchorage is different in that it will house federal
prisoners and the expansion is contingent upon receipt of
federal money.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he spoke with the city manager [of Bethel]
yesterday. He said correspondence from the city in support of SB
65 would be forthcoming.
SENATOR DYSON asked if the new addition would be adjacent to the
existing facility in Sutton.
SENATOR GREEN said that is correct.
SENATOR DYSON asked if the community of Sutton is in favor of
the expansion.
SENATOR GREEN told members the [Mat-Su] Borough brought the
proposal to her. She said she couldn't answer yes or no about
Sutton, as she has not polled the community. She added the road
that leads back into the prison is inside the community of
Sutton. She estimated the prison is two to three miles from the
road.
SENATOR DYSON asked if the expansion would take place on state
owned land.
SENATOR GREEN said that is correct.
SENATOR DYSON noted an earthquake fault zone runs close to that
area and asked if it would present a problem.
SENATOR GREEN replied that earthquake fault zones run throughout
all of Alaska and she would assume the building would be
designed to be earthquake resistant.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the community would support an identical
facility in the same spot if it were privately operated.
SENATOR GREEN said that discussion occurred about five or six
years ago when a former Senator from Kasilof recommended an
experimental pilot project. She recalled some opposition to that
project. She said she assumes the answer is yes, but she was not
certain.
CHAIR TAYLOR said it seems like this issue always turns into a
hotly debated and emotional issue in every community that has
addressed it. He said the debate doesn't seem to have anything
to do with the fact that the project is a prison but instead,
whether the prison would be publicly or privately operated.
SENATOR GREEN said that is the only discussion she could recall
since she's been involved and there seemed to be some opposition
to it.
SENATOR DYSON stated that in the two previous iterations the
Legislature has been through in attempts to resolve the shortage
of prison space, most people were primarily concerned about the
number of prisoners residing outside of the state. For whatever
reason, Alaska Natives are disproportionately represented in the
prison population, so the Native community activist groups have
enthusiastically supported returning those prisoners to Alaska.
He asked if the local Native community in the Sutton area has
expressed an interest in that location.
SENATOR GREEN said not to her knowledge, but she thought members
would be pleased to see the physical arrangement of the facility
proposed for the Mat-Su Borough because it has separate wings
that would enable programs to be tailored to the needs of the
inmate population.
SENATOR DYSON asked, "I assume, if I may continue, you haven't
heard from the Chickaloon people and how they are really looking
forward to working with the facility?"
SENATOR GREEN said she has not.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if Sutton is about 75 miles from
Anchorage.
SENATOR GREEN said it is about 20 miles from Palmer, which is
about 42 miles from Anchorage.
SENATOR COWDERY said he asked the question because during the
hearings held on building a prison in Whittier, concern was
expressed about Whittier being too far from police protection,
hospitals, and other services. He noted that Whittier is closer
to Anchorage.
SENATOR GREEN felt one factor that has evolved with the prisoner
and pre-trial facility in Palmer is that Palmer is fairly well
adapted and ready to serve most of the needs of a prison
expansion, whether those needs be supplies or hospital services.
CHAIR TAYLOR noted Tom Boutin was available to answer questions
on the fiscal note.
MR. TOM BOUTIN, Department of Revenue, told members that he
prepared the analysis of the fiscal note.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if actual title to the property will remain
with the municipality that builds the prison or whether the
state would eventually own it.
MR. BOUTIN said he would prefer that question be directed to the
sponsor because, from the way the bill was written, he is not
sure. He said he presumed, in the fiscal note, that the
municipality would own the facility at the end of the lease
term.
CHAIR TAYLOR said the cost of building the facility is actually
reflected in the lease to the extent that the total cost of
construction would be amortized over the lease with some profit,
that profit being the cost of the interest on the bonds and the
handling of those bonds. He said he assumes the state would be
responsible for maintenance of the facility as the lessee.
MR. BOUTIN said no matter who owns the facility, the
construction costs plus the bond issuance costs would equal the
net present value of the lease payments out to the maturity.
That is true no matter who the owner will be. Regarding the
second question, he said he could speak to the debt, but the
Department of Corrections would have to speak to the operating
costs.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if any federal funds are available for
this project.
MR. BOUTIN said he does not know about federal funding and
deferred to the Department of Corrections.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if Mr. Boutin could address the fungibility
of money, meaning that it will cost the state x number of
dollars to have the municipalities finance this piece of state
obligation. He noted Mr. Boutin has estimated $4.368 million as
the cost of issuing the bonds.
MR. BOUTIN said that is correct and the state has a lot of lease
debt, the last being the API building in Anchorage. He pointed
out hardly a year goes by in which the state doesn't have an
issue of lease debt. The issuance costs are usually about two
percent of the size. The biggest portion of the cost is the
underwriter. The underwriter might charge as much as $8 per
bond, the bond meaning $1,000. The other costs include a
financial advisor - a bond counsel that gives the opinion that
the debt is tax exempt, the printing costs of the official
statement and some significant advertising costs.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if this instance would require four different
bond issues by four different municipalities.
MR. BOUTIN said he is not sure, but when doing the fiscal note,
he made that assumption. The costs he listed are fixed costs so
one issuance would reduce them. The largest portion of the cost,
the underwriter, is on a per bond basis so there is not "a lot
of juice" in doing all four issues at once.
CHAIR TAYLOR said that is why he asked the question about
ownership. To secure the bonds, the taxing ability of that
municipality has to be pledged. He asked if those bonds are also
being secured with the private property owned by the
municipality that will house the building, similar to a home
mortgage arrangement.
MR. BOUTIN said, as he stated in the fiscal note, he presumed
the full faith and credit of the municipality would not be
pledged. If that were contemplated, the financing arrangement
would be entirely different.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if they would be [indisc.] bonds as opposed
to municipal bonds.
MR. BOUTIN said he assumed the security would be the state lease
payments. If the municipalities went to the voters for the full
faith and credit of the municipality, which he doesn't believe
would be the case, an entirely different kind of bond issue
would be created and the fiscal note would not apply.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the [fiscal note] applies to revenue bonds
for a municipality.
MR. BOUTIN said they are called lease revenue bonds or
certificates of participation in the lease, but all fall under
the generic term "bonds."
CHAIR TAYLOR noted that the generic term "bonds" also includes
general obligation bonds and he was trying to distinguish that
these would not be general obligation bonds of the municipality
but would be either revenue bonds or certificates of
participation paid for the state's lease.
MR. BOUTIN said the fiscal note makes the assumption the
municipality will not bring credit to the deal and that the
credit will be the lease payments. He clarified in Section 2 he
assumed the municipalities would bring no pledge of additional
security to the financings, other than the state's credit and
the bond sale proceeds. If the full faith and credit of a
municipality were pledged, there would be no need for a
Department of Revenue fiscal note.
SENATOR GREEN told members the Department of Corrections also
has information and someone from the Mat-Su Borough was
available to answer questions on that issue via teleconference.
There being no further questions of Mr. Boutin, Chair Taylor
thanked him and called Mr. Campbell to testify.
MR. CHARLES CAMPBELL, Director of the Division of Corrections 24
years ago, said he believes that SB 65 is an excellent bill from
the standpoint of corrections and congratulated the sponsors. He
said he is not aware of the bed space projections, but he likes
the idea of Sutton as a location. He feels it is crucial to
bring prisoners back to Alaska from Arizona. Alaska's
Constitution requires correctional administration to be based on
principles of reformation and on the protection of the public.
The state is not abiding by that requirement. Studies have
concluded, unmistakably, that reasonable proximity to home and
community resources is very important to provide released
prisoners a better chance. He said he does not like to think
about the fact that a lot of men, over the years, have been
released back into the community unprepared. He hopes this
legislation moves forward.
MR. CAMPBELL said he has testified in the past against prison
designs that are large and monolithic. However, although large,
the design presented with SB 65 would be compatible with unit
management. It would eliminate the disadvantages of an overly
large prison but it will require experienced staff to be
successful. He favors the Sutton location because SB 65 will be
part of a prison complex; Palmer camp is located there. It is
advantageous to have staff available and to be in a community
with a lot of people. He believes the very best correctional
program is one made up of community volunteers. He said one
wouldn't believe the way people volunteer to help out from
churches and civic clubs.
SENATOR COWDERY asked Mr. Campbell what the population of Sutton
is.
MR. CAMPBELL said he did not know but recalled that Helen Bierne
(ph), the former commissioner of the Department of Health and
Services, tried to seek a site in Sutton about 20 years ago for
the prison that ended up being built in Seward. He noted Sutton
is a rural community with good resources, such as churches and
organizations. Professionals, such as clinical psychologists and
physicians, reside within a reasonable distance. He repeated
that the potential for volunteerism is excellent. He asked the
Legislature to look at that fact that the state cannot skimp on
programs anymore. Alaska's failure to develop strong treatment
programs for alcohol abuse has been very destructive to the
state. The prodigious effect of alcohol on crime in Alaska is
mind-boggling. He offered to answer questions.
CHAIR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Campbell and asked a representative of
the Department of Corrections to testify.
MR. MARC ANTRIM, Commissioner-designee of the Department of
Corrections, told members that SB 65 is fully supported by
Governor Murkowski and DOC. They believe SB 65 will fully meet
the needs of DOC and this Administration's commitment to public
safety. He then gave a power point presentation on SB 65,
summarized as follows.
DOC currently operates facilities all over Alaska. If the
Legislature authorizes DOC to construct a prison, this DOC is
committed to a no-frills approach to prison construction (Page
2).
DOC's projected inmate population statistics show an additional
1,000 prisoners by January 2007, which includes the
approximately 650 prisoners in Arizona (Page 3).
CHAIR TAYLOR asked how many beds would be needed.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said about 1600 additional beds
would be needed in 2007.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if DOC would need new facilities beyond that.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said DOC would also tie in some
alternative incarceration programs, such as wellness courts, to
take some of the pressure off on the lower custody prisoners.
He then continued his presentation by showing a chart of
institution activity. He noted the chart shows why it is so
difficult to compare projects (Page 7). He explained the
facilities operated by DOC are multi-functional. 30,000
prisoners move in and out of facilities and, in addition, DOC
has a lot of transfers from booking facilities to sentence
facilities and halfway houses, which is why the cost of care is
so expensive. Booking is a very expensive component because DOC
must medically screen prisoners, and do classifications and
threat assessments.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM explained the diagram on page 5 is
a conceptual design of how the facility might be run and
staffed, but it is not the final design.
The chart of specifications on page 6 shows the facility would
hold 1200 prisoners in four, 20-bed medium security pods. To
economize, three prisoners would be housed in each cell. The
cells would be dry [without plumbing] and 80 percent of the
prisoners would be medium security prisoners. Each housing unit
would have group shower and toilet facilities. The facility
would meet the American Correctional Association (ACA)
standards, as well as the standards of the State of Alaska,
regarding square footage. Approximately 15 percent of the cells
would be double-bunked, close custody cells with a toilet and
sink in each cell. Approximately 5 percent of the facility would
have maximum-security cells.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM pointed out DOC does not favor
large facilities because they are hard to manage. However, this
plan must be large to attain economy of scale. DOC proposes
breaking the facility into three small units, each run as a
separate facility.
SENATOR COWDERY asked Commissioner-designee Antrim to describe
the open space in the middle.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said that would be the preparation
yard.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how they would deal with snow removal.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said snow would be blown out
through the break points. He then reestablished the schematic
was designed for the purpose of getting a handle on the costs
and preparing a fiscal note; it is not a final design.
CHAIR TAYLOR said, given the transition in administrations,
members appreciate the fact the proposal is hypothetical. He
advised members he visited the facility in Florence, Arizona
just after Alaska's first prisoners arrived. He asked the
Commissioner how this hypothetical facility compares with the
physical structure of the facility that 700 Alaskan prisoners
are currently being housed in.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said he has not had the opportunity
to travel to Florence. However, it should be similar in that the
Florence facility tries to maximize the lines of sight from the
central control points.
TAPE 03-3, SIDE B
4:30 pm
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said that's key to saving money in
new design features. One person can run the entire unit. If
someone gets out of line, they can call for backup from staff on
standby. This is a big point for putting the proposed facility
on the Palmer campsite. In the event of an emergency, they could
make use of the Palmer minimum and medium facility staff at the
higher security facility.
CHAIR TAYLOR commented both the women's prison and the men's
prison in Florence, Arizona, are similar in design to the star
configuration with the central control in the middle, but the
Corrections Corporation facility is different. He asked for a
more thorough comparison at the next hearing.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM agreed to do so. The diagram on
page 8 contained a closer view of a conceptual housing unit. The
security post is in the middle of a three wing star with 20
cells per wing. Economy is built into the concept plan in terms
of security features for the medium security facility. There are
no automated locking doors on the cells. This is similar to the
Wildwood Correctional Facility where prisoners are free to come
and go from their cells. Cells at the Lemon Creek facility in
Juneau have motorized security doors, which is very expensive.
The only motorized door in the conceptual plan is between the
security post and the three wing block.
He referred to page 9 to show a conceptual unit wing. Telephones
are located in the main area of the dayroom; showers and
restrooms are on one end of the wing and the security post is at
the other. It's less expensive to have the plumbing at one end
rather than in every cell.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what would happen in the case of a riot in
a facility in which prisoners are able to move in and out of
their cells at will.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied several facilities are
currently of this design and emphasized this is a medium
security facility. An assessment system is designed to weed out
problems. The beauty of the proposal is that, at any given time,
they would deal with no more than 60 prisoners while the rest of
the facility is secured. They would make use of current
technology like pepper spray to control the population.
SENATOR DYSON asked him to point to where the security people
would be located.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM pointed out a security control
room.
SENATOR DYSON asked how security people would know if a prisoner
was being assaulted in one of the rooms and wasn't making any
noise.
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE ANTRIM responded DOC policies require
hourly checks throughout each of the housing units. Staff would
be in and out all the time. When DOC assesses prisoners,
security factors are taken into account.
SENATOR DYSON asked what prisoner-to-guard ratios were used.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the prisoner to staff ratio
would be 6 to 1.
SENATOR DYSON figured there would be 10 staff for 60 people and
asked if they would be spread over three shifts.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM responded that is an accepted
industry standard, but it is deceptive. The 1 to 6 ratio is
determined by the total number of prisoners versus the total
number of staff. He pointed out, "It is deceiving in that the
actual number of staff at any given time is much less than
that."
SENATOR DYSON asked if there would be two or three shifts.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied that he envisioned a
standard shift pattern of four 12-hour shifts.
SENATOR DYSON asked if there would be two people on duty at any
one time.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied that one unit would be
staffed by one person with roving security patrols to cover the
entire facility. Each unit would house 240 prisoners in the six
pods.
SENATOR DYSON asked how many rovers there would be.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied there would be a total of
288 staff (100 support staff and 188 correction officers) at
that facility of which 49 or 50 correction officers would be on
at any one time. He stressed that this is a medium custody
facility.
SENATOR COWDERY asked the square footage of the cells.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied a three-person layout has
approximately 180 sq. ft. The prisoners work around the prison
and aren't sitting in their cells all the time. He pointed out
the specialized areas in the layout.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the facilities were going to be owned by
the communities, who would decide on the design.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the department would hire
the architects and do the design. They are shopping around for a
"cookie-cutter design" - something that's already established.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the plans would be bid to the private
sector.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the state would go through
the contract process and award it to the lowest bidder.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked what happens to the state under this process
if DOC designs it as opposed to hiring a private architect.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied DOC hired a private
architect. DOC has a facilities management team that is charged
with facilities maintenance and has heavy involvement in any
constructions from the first day of the design process.
CHAIR TAYLOR said it is good the state has that oversight and he
just wanted to be clear on procedures. He asked if they could do
design-build as a concept.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied DOC might do that and
reemphasized the diagram is for demonstration and discussion.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how soon a facility could be complete.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the normal timeline for one
of these projects is about 4.5 to 5 years from the time the bill
is passed. They would like to have it open in four years.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how long it would take to sell the bonds
to do this.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied he didn't know. He
explained they extrapolated some of the costs so they could have
a comprehensive fiscal note.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if he considered moving the facility away
from the earthquake fault area in which it is currently planned.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the facility management
people in the two existing facilities contacted the geologist
who wrote the article and received some good news. Apparently
the real problem with the fault lies closer to Houston several
miles away. The geologist assured him the fault is about three
miles below the surface at Sutton.
SENATOR COWDERY said his concern was that it costs more to build
in an earthquake fault zone.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said the Seward facility took three
years from beginning of design to opening the door. That's what
DOC is planning. He thought that includes time to sell the bonds
and do the design.
CHAIR TAYLOR commented it took nine months from the time the
contractor at the Arizona prison applied for the first building
permit until the first prisoner moved in. He added, "That's what
the private sector did."
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM showed an overview of what the
facility might look like on page 14. It has a perimeter road,
double fencing, and has the recreation facility within the
building structure. Additionally, he noted the maximum security
or close custody housing. He pointed out the area where
prisoners could work, the maintenance area, and industry areas,
which are common features in most state facilities.
He said there were two floors of cells in each of the wings and
it would be possible to have culturally relevant housing and a
faith-based program in another area, as examples. Another
feature of this plan is if there was a sudden down-turn in the
economy or a disaster, and assuming something could be done with
the prisoners, one or two of the buildings could be closed,
staff could be put in layoff and the other two could keep
working. He explained, "It's much more flexible than if you had
a contract of some sort."
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said the problem with comparing
facilities is they have a group of facilities that do a number
of different functions, which results in different prices. For
example, Palmer Correctional Center is medium/minimum and it
costs about $57.17 per day versus Lemon Creek, which is a multi-
function booking facility. Because of that and because it is in
Juneau, its costs are higher. The Anchorage jail just opened and
runs about $157.26 per day per person. Page 16 compares costs in
SB 65 of $74.14 to the costs in HB 55 of $91.00. The SB 65
figure includes $46.51 in operating costs and $27.63 for capital
costs.
HB 55 says the alternative facility would be operating at a per
day rate of $91-$94. He chose the lower of the two figures to
give the benefit of a doubt. He was not clear what the capital
costs would be for that facility. Both facilities are doing
exactly the same mission and assume a 25-year term on the debt
issued.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said any corrections project would
have some program costs and those are specifically excluded
under HB 55. There is quite a bit of variation in the operating
costs. The costs for inmate programs, health care, Division of
Administration and support costs, and statewide direct costs are
fixed at $36.25. The total averages out to be $113.31 system-
wide. He explained there are facilities that do a wide variety
of missions and are also in expensive areas across the state.
All of those combined give them the average cost per prison per
day. But, in the Palmer Correctional Center, a medium custody
facility, they start with an institution cost of $57.17 and end
up with a total cost of $93.42. There's a lot of variation in
there.
So when we talk about a comparison cost of $113.31,
it's problematic, which is why comparing SB 65 to HB
55 is a much more honest way to assess - or to do this
comparison rather than comparing what we're operating
in the state now - because they do a wide variety of
missions as opposed to the facilities that are
proposed under both these bills.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked him to explain the tents.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied tents are used seasonally
at a number of facilities for overflow. Lemon Creek is the only
facility that leaves one up year-round.
CHAIR TAYLOR said they could disregard those because they are
temporary.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said that was correct.
CHAIR TAYLOR said instead of taking the least expensive facility
cost statewide of $93.42 (Palmer), he asked what the costs were
at the facilities like Bethel.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM responded Bethel is known as the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Correctional Center and has costs of $145.63 per
day.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked how many prisoners would be added in Bethel.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied, "There would be 120 beds
in Bethel."
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if that was an increase of 120.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied that was an increase.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if they projected any cost savings for
Bethel.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied there would be economy of
scale in Bethel, but the savings would come in reduced
transportation. Bethel currently has a capacity of 90 and they
are over-capacity all the time. About 90 percent of the
population is pre-trial and they have to get the prisoners
awaiting trial out. Cost savings would come from reduced
transports to and from other facilities, namely Anchorage.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked what the costs were in the other facilities
that would be expanded.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the Fairbanks Correctional
Center has a cost of $126.17.
MR. JERRY BURNETT, Director of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections, explained the additional cost per day
for new prisoners in Bethel was $93 per day.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM added that figure would drop
substantially from $145. Page 18 shows what the two facilities
would cost with the fixed costs added in. The facility in SB 65
would run $110.39 (including $27.63 - capital costs) per person
per day and the proposed facility in HB 55 would run $127.25
(capital costs not specified) per day.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked, if the fixed and other direct costs are
going to exist in the future as well as now, what the prisoners
in Arizona cost. He questioned, "Is that included in the Arizona
cost right now - the $36.25?"
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the state's contract with
the Arizona facility assumes a number of services and excludes a
number as well. "It's a different calculation," he noted.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if there is a total figure for health care
and each of the things listed as fixed in the Arizona contract.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the cost is about $66.10
per day per person in Arizona.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if that includes almost all of those fixed
costs.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said they were looking at $135,000
per bed x $1,200 and that totals $162,000,000. They are looking
at an annual lease factor of $10,083 per bed at 25 years at 5.5
percent interest.
SENATOR DYSON said the fiscal note says $14,600 per bed.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the bill says up to $14,600
per bed, but he thought the fiscal note actually said $10,000.
CHAIR TAYLOR said at one point they were paying $135,000 per bed
and even at $10,000 per bed x 25 years, that's a quarter of a
million dollar cost per bed in actual costs "...by the time you
factor in paying off the bonds and the interest and paying the
lease payment to someone else to either own, build or have the
facility for us."
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said that was correct.
CHAIR TAYLOR recapped the actual cost to the state if it goes as
high as $14,000 per year is going to be $350,000 to $400,000 per
bed.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM explained SB 65 contains more than
just one facility. It provides for a prison expansion in Bethel
of 120 beds. This is critical as Bethel is a regional hub with
approximately 60,000 people in the area. It is served by a
superior court, which generates a lot of pre-trial activity.
Again, the facility is at capacity or over about 95 percent of
the time. They anticipate staffing of 11 for the facility; that
would include two security posts at any given time, providing a
ratio of 1 to 5.5-5.8.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked why the state should build a full-time
facility for medium security prisoners with a certain number of
beds when the state obviously needs a pre-trial facility. He
said it is obvious the need for long term prisoners is very
small compared to the pre-trial requirements. He pointed out the
number could run as high as 25,000 to 30,000.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said that is essentially what this
facility expansion is. It is designed to meet that pre-trial
population need. He explained DOC's original proposal was for an
80-bed expansion but, after speaking with Senator Hoffman and
DOC's transportation staff, the number was increased to 120. He
noted the 80 beds would make a difference but DOC would still be
doing transports on a daily basis.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM described the expansion plans and
the staffing requirements for the Fairbanks facility. He told
members the final piece of SB 65 involves an expansion of the
Anchorage jail. That proposal was brought to DOC by the U.S.
Marshall's Service, which currently contracts with DOC to house
federal retainees for the U.S. Marshall's and the INS. That
contract is met or exceeded at all times. The U.S. Marshall's
Service has announced that it will be expanding its presence
primarily in Anchorage and Juneau over the next few years. That
expansion will increase law enforcement activity in the state
and will necessitate more bed space. SB 65 encompasses receipt
authority in the amount of $30 million and, should the
Legislature appropriate that money, DOC would see the expansion
for a 200 bed project. Staffing would be paid through the added
receipts generated by the client billing to the federal
government.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the U.S. Marshall's Office operates any
prisons or whether it always contracts out for services.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said it does operate an INS
facility outside of the Seattle airport. He said most of its
work is done under contract to states.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked if the State of Alaska would act as
contractor to the U.S. Marshall's Office.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said DOC already does; this would
expand that to meet the increased federal need by 200 beds. He
then pointed out the location (on page 25) for that expansion is
the Anchorage jail on 3rd Ave.
CHAIR TAYLOR thought the Legislature just paid a huge amount of
money to expand that jail.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM agreed and said it was actually new
construction. He noted the addition would be made up of three
housing pods that would hold an additional 200 prisoners. He
told members some Senators expressed concern that facilities are
not being built in their areas. He said it is important to think
about DOC as a corrections system. The benefit, for example, to
the residents of Juneau, will come directly from the
construction of a 1200 bed facility in the Mat-Su. Right now, at
any given time, 30 to 50 percent of the Lemon Creek population
is from the Anchorage area. DOC envisions the population of
prisoners will shift around to make room for local residents
once the new facility opens. The additional capacity will put
the corrections system back on track regarding the specialized
missions of many of the facilities, for example the Wildwood
Correctional Center was envisioned as a medium security facility
with prison industries programs. At this point, the system is so
overcrowded those missions have gone by the wayside. Right now
prisoners aren't kept in prison industries or treatment programs
because they have to be transferred around just to balance out
bed counts.
SENATOR GUESS asked if the fiscal note is for all of the
facilities or just Palmer and how the Commissioner foresees
phasing in the expansions and the Palmer facility.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said 4.5 years is a worse case
scenario. If this project is authorized, DOC plans to put this
on a fast track and will do everything possible to get the bonds
issued quickly and begin construction.
SENATOR GUESS said she didn't know if the plan was to start all
projects at once or whether it was to do the new facility first.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said the fiscal notes assumed the
projects would all be done at once.
SENATOR GUESS then asked if the $41 million on the fiscal note
takes into account the cost savings of housing prisoners in
Arizona.
SENATOR GUESS then indicated the $25 million would be taken away
from the $41 million leaving an additional $16 million in
operating costs.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said the Arizona operating costs
would be rolled into the new facility.
SENATOR GUESS said the fiscal note assumes no savings.
MR. BURNETT said it doesn't show the savings from Arizona.
SENATOR HOFFMAN pointed out the fiscal note does not reflect the
savings from a fewer number of transfers once the new facilities
are built.
MR. BURNETT agreed it does not.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said the transportation costs amount to between
$2 and $3 million so savings would be achieved in lowered
transportation expenses.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said that is correct.
5:15 p.m.
SENATOR DYSON asked if he thought public policy should override
the economic concerns.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM answered he didn't think it should.
SENATOR DYSON asked if the reason Arizona prisoners are in a
publicly run facility is because it's cheaper.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied they are in Arizona because
there simply isn't capacity anywhere else. Prior administrations
attempted to deal with that, but there were no alternatives.
SENATOR DYSON asked if there were any publicly operated
facilities in the country where Alaska prisoners could have been
housed.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied industry publications
indicate that Minnesota has space at times, but the decision to
go to Arizona was probably based on cost.
SENATOR DYSON asked if he would elect not to use a private in-
state facility that was significantly cheaper because of the
superior service and public policy call of having it run in the
public sector.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied he wouldn't make that
statement; the Legislature would have to consider that question.
SB 65 is a solution that meets his concerns and citizen's
concerns in terms of economy.
SENATOR DYSON remarked the state could "hold their feet to the
fire" on a contract and could see if someone else "could beat
it."
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied a private facility would
have the same problems as evidenced by recent negotiations at
the Nome facility. The State of Alaska doesn't have shareholders
to answer to.
SENATOR DYSON asked if this Administration would look favorably
on a project that could be operated at a reduced rate.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said that was his goal as a
manager.
5:30 p.m.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if he would give favorable consideration
to an owner/operator who could build and run a facility to his
specifications and at a lower cost.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied the Governor ran on a
public prison platform and has made a commitment to this
project. He supports SB 65, as does the Department of
Corrections, but a state manager must consider costs. He thought
the reality of such a situation would be tough because of the
profit margin that has to be built into a private operation. The
department is talking about changing the entire way they do
business since current facilities are old and ill designed and
require more staff to run. He opined state employees who go
through the academies are the highest trained correctional
officers in the Northwest. He stated, "We provide a product of
the state that keeps our citizens safer than any
alternatives...."
He added there is a lot of room in the facilities for private
contracting. The basic security and probation staff for the good
of public safety has got to be state employees.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if he had any safety statistics on the
private facility in Arizona.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied he could provide more
material than he'd want on the subject.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if public facilities are safer than
private facilities.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied a number of studies lead to
that conclusion.
SENATOR GUESS asked why he didn't think Southeast Alaska needed
expansion.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM explained any increase in the
system would have the effect of moving people back where they
belong. In Juneau, more than 30 percent of the population is
from somewhere other than Juneau, primarily Anchorage.
SENATOR GUESS asked if that meant there are no prisoners from
Southeast Alaska in other facilities.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM said he wouldn't make that
assumption. Because of transport pressures, the department moves
prisoners all over. Some prisoners that are from Juneau are at
program facilities outside the Juneau area. Some long-term
prisoners are in Anchorage and some are moved to Arizona. This
added capacity would provide the ability to return prisoners to
Juneau or wherever they are from when their release date
approaches.
The goal is to move prisoners closer to home at the end of their
sentence because all prisoners must be released at the place of
arrest. If the prisoner isn't returned prior to release, the
state must buy the prisoner a return ticket to the community of
arrest upon their release.
CHAIR TAYLOR thanked him for the presentation and in-depth
answers. He asked if the fiscal note analysis for 1,000
prisoners at $70 per day x 365 days is a 2008 projection for the
Arizona facility.
COMMISSIONER-DESIGNEE ANTRIM replied that would cover the
expansion they are anticipating in their system in addition to
the current number. The contract in Arizona is now $54 plus
built-in costs bringing the total to about $66 per day. There
are 650 prisoners there now.
CHAIR TAYLOR calculated the actual dollar savings, if things
were to stay constant, would be $14 to $15 million rather than
the projected $41 million.
There being no further questions for Commissioner-designee
Antrim, Chair Taylor asked Mr. Pruitt to give his testimony.
MR. FRANK PRUITT described himself as former legal counsel,
Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of the Department of
Corrections under Governors Sheffield, Cowper and Hickel and a
former state trooper. He spent 20 years in the public arena and
is now in private sector. He did not come to testify on SB 65,
but wanted to respond to some inaccuracies with respect to HB
55. Per diem of $91 per day per bed includes capital and
operating costs; it excludes major medical and transportation
costs. HB 55 is about the Whittier proposal, which is close to
the population center. He estimated transportation costs to be
50 cents per day.
Major medical, however, is another matter. Inmate health care is
about $16. The private contractor anticipates providing health
care to the exclusion of major medical. In the Department of
Correction operating budget, the total annual health care cost
is about $17 million. About half of the $17 million is personnel
costs and half of that, or about $4 million, is contract costs.
He thought major medical was buried in the $2 to $4 million of
contractual services for dental and medical services. Under any
circumstances, the daily cost of care for prisoners per day
would be under $95, not $120.
The preliminary design of the Whittier facility is based upon
current Department of Corrections standards, which has a four-
prisoner to one correction officer ratio. The private facility
is designed on a 1 to 4.5 ratio. He thought this dialogue was
very healthy because of the assertions that the private sector
can deliver comparable quality at less cost.
He explained he negotiated the Arizona contract as one of the
last acts of the Hickel Administration. This was negotiated as a
stopgap measure for the incoming administration because there
were no beds left in this state or any state. Three private
companies had beds and Corrections Corporation of America
[Florence, Arizona] was selected.
CHAIR TAYLOR expressed hope the Legislature would move forward
on the issue this session one way or the other. He didn't know
if the solution would be beneficial to the state in terms of
saving money and beneficial to the public sector concerns for
security and housing Alaska prisoners in state.
MR. PRUITT agreed and said he thought the Arizona contract,
after eight years, was a model government/private sector
partnership. The security there has been no better or worse than
comparable state systems as indicated by a recent Harvard Law
Review. He is convinced the private sector can deliver
comparable state services at roughly 15 percent less than
comparable state operated services in the state, but it will
take a cooperative effort.
SENATOR DYSON asked if his bid included major medical while the
plan received from the department did not.
MR. PRUITT replied the presentation from the department set out
the per diem rate in HB 55 at $91 and added $36.25 for a total
HB 55 rate. HB 55 anticipates capital and operating costs will
be included along with health care programs, administrative
overhead, etc., but it excludes the major medical portion of the
total health cost, which he calculated to be about $2 per day
per inmate. If you add $2 to $91 you get $93 and if you add
another $1 for administration and transportation, it's $94. HB
55 probably should have been drafted so that the private
contract was guaranteeing costs at a percentage of the more
costly state services.
SENATOR DYSON pointed out costs were based on different staff to
inmate ratios. He asked what the 15 percent difference in
staffing means in total costs.
MR. PRUITT replied he could get that information for him.
SENATOR DYSON asked if he was using adjoining cells in his
proposals.
MR. PRUITT replied he initially used staffing ratios that the
state uses, but it would be easy to take the department's model
and estimate what it would cost the private sector to build.
CHAIR TAYLOR said there were about 30 more witnesses to testify
and they would continue to work on this issue.
SB 65 was held in committee.
CHAIR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|