Legislature(2003 - 2004)

05/09/2004 11:13 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 65(FIN) am                                                                                             
     An Act  relating to  the qualifications of  correctional                                                                   
     officers,  parole  officers,   and  probation  officers;                                                                   
     authorizing the Department  of Corrections to enter into                                                                   
     lease- purchase  agreements with municipalities  for new                                                                   
     or  expanded  public  correctional   facilities  in  the                                                                   
     Fairbanks  North  Star  Borough,  the  Matanuska-Susitna                                                                   
     Borough, Bethel, the Municipality  of Anchorage, and the                                                                   
     City  of   Seward;  relating  to  the   development  and                                                                   
     financing  of privately  operated correctional  facility                                                                   
     space  and  services;  authorizing   the  Department  of                                                                   
     Corrections  to enter  into  a lease-purchase  agreement                                                                   
     with the City  of Whittier for the confinement  and care                                                                   
     of   prisoners   in  privately   operated   correctional                                                                   
     facility  space if  the state  cannot  provide the  same                                                                   
     level of  services required  in state law  or regulation                                                                   
     for  the  same  or  less  cost;  giving  notice  of  and                                                                   
     approving, and  authorizing the entry into  and issuance                                                                   
     of  certificates  of  participation  for,  the  upgrade,                                                                   
     expansion,   and  replacement   of   certain  jails   in                                                                   
     Dillingham  and Kodiak; and  providing for an  effective                                                                   
SENATOR  LYDA  GREEN,  SPONSOR,   explained  that  the  State                                                                   
suffers from overcrowding in statewide  prison facilities and                                                                   
that Alaska  needs a  responsible solution  to address  these                                                                   
serious   issues,   which  arise   from   the   overcrowding,                                                                   
deteriorating  physical  plants  and  anticipated  growth  in                                                                   
prisoner  populations.   SB 65 is  the resulting  legislation                                                                   
from numerous conversations, revealing  a need for compromise                                                                   
in  order to  pass  a comprehensive,  long-term  correctional                                                                   
facility plan  that adequately addresses public  safety.  The                                                                   
bill would:                                                                                                                     
   ·    Ensure local involvement in the process and                                                                             
        guarantees open and fair competition;                                                                                   
   ·    Creates a level playing field between the public and                                                                    
        private sectors; and                                                                                                    
   ·    Requires the use of the State procurement process, a                                                                    
        feasibility study, and approval of facility designs                                                                     
        by   the   Commissioner   of   the    Department   of                                                                   
Senator  Green   believed  that  the  end  result   would  be                                                                   
consistency  in  facility design  and  operation.   The  bill                                                                   
additionally, allows  the State of Alaska to  bring prisoners                                                                   
back  from  Arizona,  directing  that money  into  the  State                                                                   
Senator Green provided a sectional analysis of the bill.                                                                        
Co-Chair  Harris inquired  if the fiscal  note cost  included                                                                   
bringing  prisoners   back  from  Arizona.     Senator  Green                                                                   
acknowledged that  it did and requested her  staff to address                                                                   
the  concern.   She  advised that  the  Department of  Public                                                                   
Safety would be transporting the  prisoners across the State.                                                                   
She  added  that  there  would  be  an  increase  as  numbers                                                                   
continue to rise with the current trend continuing.                                                                             
Co-Chair Harris pointed  out that the bill indicates  a "cost                                                                   
not  to exceed"  $14,600 dollars  per  year, per  bed in  the                                                                   
Fairbanks  and Mat-Su  areas.   He asked  the current  yearly                                                                   
costs for incarcerating the Arizona prisoners.                                                                                  
TRACI CARPENTER,  STAFF, SENATOR LYDA GREEN,  stated that the                                                                   
current total  amount is $14.154  million dollars for  out of                                                                   
state  contracts.     Senator  Green  interjected   that  the                                                                   
calculations  could be  "no  more than"  as  included in  the                                                                   
note.   The  costs  have been  calculated  over  the past  15                                                                   
years.   Ms. Carpenter added  that the language  indicates 25                                                                   
years,  but for  purposes  of  calculation, the  fiscal  note                                                                   
allows for 15 years.  Senator  Green added that at the end of                                                                   
the  15-year period,  the bed  space could  not exceed  $14.6                                                                   
million dollars.                                                                                                                
Co-Chair Harris  understood that the bill would  allow listed                                                                   
communities  such  as  Seward  and Anchorage  and  a  federal                                                                   
issue, Bethel,  Mat-Su, and Fairbanks  North Star  Borough to                                                                   
agree to  a bond based  upon a State  contact to  house beds.                                                                   
Senator Green  clarified that it  would not only  house those                                                                   
beds but also construct the facility.                                                                                           
Co-Chair Harris  noted that the  bill provided a  maximum and                                                                   
"not to  exceed" capital costs  of $135 thousand  dollars for                                                                   
urban areas  and $155  thousand dollars  in Bethel.   Senator                                                                   
Green affirmed that information.                                                                                                
Co-Chair  Harris questioned  Senator Green's  intent for  the                                                                   
Whittier  concern.   Senator Green  responded that  following                                                                   
passage  of  the  bill,  the City  of  Whittier  could  begin                                                                   
discussions  with  the  State about  bonding  and  continuing                                                                   
contract  service  costs  with   the  State  by  housing  the                                                                   
prisoners with continued care.   The bill requires that it be                                                                   
an  open  and competitive  process  according  to  the  State                                                                   
procurement  codes.    She  pointed  out  the  need  for  the                                                                   
feasibility study.                                                                                                              
Co-Chair  Harris asked  if  the feasibility  study  indicated                                                                   
that private  prison care  would be  cheaper, would  there be                                                                   
language included  to indicate  that other facilities  should                                                                   
contract out.     Senator Green  explained that the  language                                                                   
deals only with the Whittier concern.   Co-Chair Harris asked                                                                   
if there could  be a "mandate" on the Department  to contract                                                                   
with  the  private  sector  when   costs  could  be  lowered.                                                                   
Senator Green did not know.                                                                                                     
Representative  Hawker   referenced  the  Whittier   proposal                                                                   
feasibility   study,  asking   if  it   would  be   conducted                                                                   
internally or by  an independent third party.   Senator Green                                                                   
understood  that there  would  be an  independent  contractor                                                                   
Co-Chair  Harris asked  if the  referenced  facility was  the                                                                   
Sutton Prison.  Senator Green affirmed it is.                                                                                   
Representative  Chenault  noted  that  the  indicated  annual                                                                   
lease costs shows the facility  at the Anchorage Correctional                                                                   
Center @ $1.76 million dollars  and the Spring Creek Center @                                                                   
$1.76 million  dollars.  Ms.  Carpenter explained  that those                                                                   
numbers  are based on  actual best  estimates of  anticipated                                                                   
costs and are less than what is allocated in the bill.                                                                          
Representative  Croft  asked about  the  competitive  bidding                                                                   
process and  if the RFP  determined that the  feasibility was                                                                   
competitively bid.   Senator Green  responded that an  RFP or                                                                   
bid provides  a feasibility  study, first  and intended  that                                                                   
any   statewide  contractors   would  be   allowed  to   bid.                                                                   
Representative  Croft  questioned  if  they  "all"  would  be                                                                   
competitive.   Senator Green replied  that in the  process, a                                                                   
competitive  bid is required  and that  the language  mirrors                                                                   
Representative  Croft agreed  that it  was covered under  the                                                                   
feasibility study,  however, pointed out language  on Page 4,                                                                   
Lines 11-12,  indicating that  the Department of  Corrections                                                                   
would be required to agree with  the City of Whittier.  There                                                                   
is already  an agreement  between the  City of Whittier  with                                                                   
companies wanting  the work.   He did not see  any discretion                                                                   
that after  the study  was done,  it would  be cheaper  to do                                                                   
anything  but a  predefined contract.    Senator Green  noted                                                                   
language  on   Page  4,  Line   23.    Representative   Croft                                                                   
questioned the effect  with the City of Whittier  for design,                                                                   
construction  and operations  of a facility.   Senator  Green                                                                   
explained  that the  intent was  for those  projects only  to                                                                   
come and the others would be "grandfathered" in.                                                                                
Representative  Hawker  mentioned   that  there  were  people                                                                   
present who  could testify  on the  bidding process  the city                                                                   
went through.                                                                                                                   
Representative  Chenault asked  if  other municipalities  had                                                                   
been required to follow the State  Procurement Code.  Senator                                                                   
Green affirmed,  because they would be dealing  directly with                                                                   
the State on the design and approval of the facilities.                                                                         
Representative Chenault  reiterated concerns with  the annual                                                                   
lease  costs.    He  pointed  out  that  Fairbanks  indicates                                                                   
maximum-security  costs while  others  mention only  minimum-                                                                   
security costs.   Ms. Carpenter  stated that under  the bill,                                                                   
the annual total  lease cost for the City of  Seward would be                                                                   
$2.1 million dollars, however,  the estimate is $1.76 million                                                                   
dollars.  She noted there is leeway for errors.                                                                                 
Representative  Hawker referenced  commentary  in the  fiscal                                                                   
analysis,  indicating  no  consideration  of  an  independent                                                                   
facility  in Whittier  and asked  what that  meant.   Senator                                                                   
Green  did  not know  and  requested  that someone  from  the                                                                   
Department respond.                                                                                                             
Representative  Fate asked  where the  projected numbers  for                                                                   
the Anchorage expansion originated.   Senator Green explained                                                                   
that was a separate federal issue  and that those funds would                                                                   
expand  the Anchorage  facility  for the  housing of  federal                                                                   
prisoners.  That money would only  be an authorization by the                                                                   
State  for  use.   She  added  that  Governor  Murkowski  has                                                                   
indicated  that  Alaska  needs   a  large,  central  location                                                                   
facility to  house prisoners who  stay from a medium  to long                                                                   
period of  time.  There needs  to be an expansion  in Bethel,                                                                   
as during  the process,  the State  currently transfers  from                                                                   
the  overcrowded Bethel  facility  to the  one in  Anchorage.                                                                   
The Fairbanks  facility  also has needs  for additional  beds                                                                   
also, which  could be balanced  out by a large  South-central                                                                   
facility, designed  for long-term use.  It  currently, houses                                                                   
those  prisoners being  sent to  Arizona,  creating a  ripple                                                                   
effect without enough statewide prison beds.                                                                                    
Representative  Joule noted  that he  was happy  to see  that                                                                   
some  of  the contract  jails  had  been  included,  however,                                                                   
pointed  out  that  the bill  does  not  indicate  "contract"                                                                   
concerns.   Senator  Green responded  that  at present  time,                                                                   
there is ongoing litigation to address that concern.                                                                            
Co-Chair Harris  inquired if  the bill  covers the  rural hub                                                                   
areas.   Senator  Green  responded that  all  areas with  the                                                                   
greatest needs are covered.  She  added that local government                                                                   
must  agree   to  accept  the   process  of  advocating   and                                                                   
willingness to  assume the bonding  burden on that  there are                                                                   
many communities  not  interested in  doing that.   SB  65 is                                                                   
designed  as  a  lease/purchase;   the  State  will  own  the                                                                   
facility  and  the  community  will be  involved  in  design,                                                                   
construction, maintenance and  use of it.  In response to Co-                                                                   
Chair Harris, Senator  Green added that is the  same with the                                                                   
Whittier  facility and  that the State  would ultimately  own                                                                   
JODY  SIMPSON,  MEMBER,  MAT   SU  BOROUGH  ASSEMBLY,  voiced                                                                   
support  for SB  65.   She  noted  that the  Mat-Su  Assembly                                                                   
adopted a resolution  supporting the concept  of establishing                                                                   
State-operated prisons for the following reasons:                                                                               
   ·    Pressing need to reduce overcrowding in Alaska                                                                          
   ·    Bringing home prisoners currently housed out of                                                                         
   ·    Providing needed construction and year-round jobs;                                                                      
        and that                                                                                                                
   ·    Maintaining prisoners in-state, allows them to be                                                                       
        closer to their families and culture, enhancing                                                                         
Representative  Stoltze  mentioned  the Valley  Hospital  and                                                                   
other new triads.   He asked their ability  to provide secure                                                                   
beds.  Ms. Simpson did not understand  the connection between                                                                   
the two facilities.                                                                                                             
RAY  GILLESPIE,  LOBBYIST,  MAT SU  BOROUGH,  explained  that                                                                   
there  had been  extensive discussions  with Triad  regarding                                                                   
the need  for bed security  in the event  that the  prison is                                                                   
built.   It is understood  that it would  be provided  by the                                                                   
Valley Hospital.                                                                                                                
MARC   ANTRIM,  COMMISSIONER,   DEPARTMENT  OF   CORRECTIONS,                                                                   
indicated  that the Department  and the  Governor support  SB
65,  allowing  the  Department   of  Corrections  to  address                                                                   
longstanding  capacity  issues.    At  any  given  time,  the                                                                   
Department  is  at  100%  capacity with  750+  out  of  State                                                                   
prisoners.  SB  65 provides a vehicle for  the Administration                                                                   
to address these concerns.  The  bill has a bonding component                                                                   
built  into it, so  that the  State can  only fund  projects,                                                                   
which will not negatively affect credit rating.                                                                                 
Representative  Stoltze  inquired  about  the status  of  the                                                                   
Correction  Corporation from Florence.   Commissioner  Antrim                                                                   
responded that the  Department currently has an  RFP for out-                                                                   
of-state contract  beds and that the Corrections  Corporation                                                                   
of  America  is   the  contractor  that  the   Department  is                                                                   
currently working with.                                                                                                         
Representative Stoltze asked if  the Department anticipates a                                                                   
large savings  during the  next round of  RFP's.   Mr. Antrim                                                                   
advised  the  Department  is  attempting  to  determine  that                                                                   
through negotiations.                                                                                                           
JERRY  BURNETT, DIRECTOR,  ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES  DIVISION,                                                                   
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, noted  "worse fear" scenarios.  He                                                                   
thought it would  be surprising if future prices  were lower.                                                                   
The State is currently in active negotiations on price.                                                                         
Representative  Hawker spoke  to concerns  of the  long-term,                                                                   
down-range costs.   No  one has challenged  the need  for the                                                                   
facilities   but  he   questioned   the  long-term   deferred                                                                   
maintenance  costs.   He  inquired  if  the option  had  been                                                                   
considered for  the City  of Whittier to  cover the  debt for                                                                   
operations of the facility.  Mr.  Burnett said there has been                                                                   
no  cost analysis  of that  issue  and that  without one,  he                                                                   
would not know  the answer.  Commissioner  Antrim interjected                                                                   
that  in either  case, the  State will  see costs  associated                                                                   
with the facility.                                                                                                              
RICK HOHNBAUM, (TESTIFIED VIA  TELECONFERENCE), CITY MANAGER,                                                                   
CITY OF WHITTIER,  reaffirmed Whittier's interest  and desire                                                                   
to establish a city-owned and  contractually operated private                                                                   
prison.  The economic benefits  would be significant for that                                                                   
small community.   The  community and  the City Council  have                                                                   
continually  supported the  project.   He noted  that he  had                                                                   
been  encouraged  by  the  City   to  make  sure  that  every                                                                   
opportunity was taken to guarantee  success.  He spoke of the                                                                   
bidding process  and the selection  of the firm  partnership,                                                                   
   ·    Economic benefit to the City of Whittier,                                                                               
   ·    Financial benefit of cost savings for a private                                                                         
        prison for the State, and                                                                                               
   ·    Social benefit of housing prisoners in the same                                                                         
        State as family with cultural connections for the                                                                       
        long-term benefit of prisoners and families of                                                                          
TAPE HFC 04 - 110, Side B                                                                                                     
Mr.  Hohnbaum  offered to  answer  further questions  of  the                                                                   
DEE    HUBBARD,     CITIZEN    ACTIVIST     (TESTIFIED    VIA                                                                   
TELECONFERENCE), STERLING,  noted that she supports  SB 65 as                                                                   
it came  over from  the Senate,  especially the inclusion  of                                                                   
the training  requirements.   She pointed out  Representative                                                                   
Croft's  Amendment #3,  which would  delete Section  5.   She                                                                   
questioned Representative  Hawker's Amendment #1,  to Line 9,                                                                   
and asked about a feasibility  study extending over a 25-year                                                                   
period.  Ms.  Hubbard asked why the Office  of Management and                                                                   
Budget (OMB) had  been selected instead of the  Department of                                                                   
Corrections and  the Department of Administration  to fulfill                                                                   
the contract.   Ms. Hubbard continued addressing  concerns of                                                                   
the amendments.  (Copies of All Amendments on File).                                                                            
Ms. Hubbard identified  concerns regarding use  for the State                                                                   
procurement  code.    She  recommended   that  an  audit  for                                                                   
contract  monitoring compliance  be placed  in statute.   She                                                                   
added that  there should  be a use  of fines for  non-payment                                                                   
and a  specific list  of "powers and  non powers"  granted to                                                                   
Representative   Stoltze    recommended   that    the   State                                                                   
procurement officer address Ms. Hubbard's questions.                                                                            
Representative  Hawker  MOVED  to ADOPT  Amendment  #1,  #23-                                                                   
LS0392\NA.8, Luckhaupt,  5/8/04.  (Copy on File).    Co-Chair                                                                   
Williams OBJECTED for discussions purposes.                                                                                     
Representative Hawker  explained that Amendment  #1 clarifies                                                                   
the Whittier component:                                                                                                         
   ·    The first section, Page 4, Line 4, mirrors language                                                                     
        for authorization of other municipal  facilities with                                                                   
        intent  to relieve  overcrowding  for  the  statewide                                                                   
        correctional facilities.                                                                                                
   ·    Page 4, Line 9, language clarifies that when the                                                                        
        contract is signed,  there should be a  cost analysis                                                                   
        study defined  before the  State moves  forward.   An                                                                   
        outside study would be mandated.                                                                                        
   ·    Page 4, Line 10 specifies that the study shall be                                                                       
        contracted in an out-source basis.                                                                                      
   ·    Page 4, Line 12, language defines what the                                                                              
        feasibility study  should  determine and  that it  be                                                                   
        completed by October 1, 2004.   Representative Hawker                                                                   
        requested to amend that section by  changing the date                                                                   
        to January 1,  2005.  There  being NO OBJECTION,  the                                                                   
        date was changed.                                                                                                       
   ·    Page 4, Line 15, provides language to guarantee that                                                                    
        comparisons are equal.                                                                                                  
Senator Green agreed to most of  the amendment except for the                                                                   
feasibility  completion date.   She admitted  that there  are                                                                   
many steps  that need to  be addressed before  the completion                                                                   
date; not  knowing when the  request will move  forward would                                                                   
make that difficult.                                                                                                            
Representative  Hawker  asked  if it  would  relieve  Senator                                                                   
Green's concerns  to add language that it be  complete within                                                                   
six months  of the proposed receipt  from the city.   Senator                                                                   
Green replied  that if everything  was complete by  2006 that                                                                   
would be the  end date.  She  did not know how long  it would                                                                   
take and requested that the Department address that.                                                                            
Co-Chair Harris asked if there  had been a required timeframe                                                                   
for  the  feasibility  study  related  to  other  facilities.                                                                   
Senator Green  stated that  none had  been required  and that                                                                   
the  requirement  did  address   contracts  and  labor  force                                                                   
development.   A feasibility study  would be required  if the                                                                   
intent  were to  use anything  by  the State  labor force  in                                                                   
order  to build a  facility.   A method  for outsourcing  and                                                                   
privatization could be provided.   Therefore, that would make                                                                   
a feasibility  study a  requirement.   She admitted  that she                                                                   
did not know  time constraints associated on  the feasibility                                                                   
Co-Chair Williams  recommended that each  community establish                                                                   
the  date.   Representative  Hawker  mentioned  concern  with                                                                   
providing a date  certain.  If the Department  of Corrections                                                                   
had everything  in place by a  certain time, they  would have                                                                   
to  enter into  a lease  agreement.   He  thought that  there                                                                   
needed  to  be  protection  for   communities  and  that  the                                                                   
completion date or the date certain  could be eliminated.  He                                                                   
stressed that the community deserves  certainty that there is                                                                   
a level playing field.                                                                                                          
Senator Green replied that there  is "no certainty" in any of                                                                   
the bill.  Any  city or group that comes to  the commissioner                                                                   
and indicates  that their city  was willing to go  into debt,                                                                   
there still  would be no assurance  that they would  be given                                                                   
permission.   She stressed  that there was  no intent  in the                                                                   
bill to provide  assurance.  The bill is permissive  with in-                                                                   
dates for private & other facilities around the State.                                                                          
Co-Chair Williams asked Representative  Hawker if it would be                                                                   
okay to  make the  appropriate  changes in  that area of  the                                                                   
amendment.     Representative   Hawker  requested   that  the                                                                   
Department of Corrections testify regarding any change.                                                                         
Recess:        12:25 P.M.                                                                                                     
Reconvene:     12:40 P.M.                                                                                                     
Representative  Hawker  MOVED   to  change  Amendment  #1  by                                                                   
deleting language  on Lines 14 & 15:  "The  feasibility study                                                                   
shall be  completed by  October 1,  2004".  Additionally,  it                                                                   
would need  to include changing the  date on Page 4,  Line 5,                                                                   
from July  1, 2006  to July  1, 2007.   Representative  Croft                                                                   
OBJECTED   for   further  clarification.      Following   the                                                                   
Department providing  that information, Representative  Croft                                                                   
WITHDREW his  OBJECTION.  There  being NO further  OBJECTION,                                                                   
Amendment #1 as amended was adopted.                                                                                            
Representative  Hawker MOVED to  WITHDRAW Amendment  #2, #23-                                                                   
LS0392\N.A.10, Luckhaupt, 5/8/04.   (Copy on File).  He noted                                                                   
that #2  would be replaced by  Amendment #5.  There  being NO                                                                   
OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was withdrawn.                                                                                          
Representative Croft  MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3.   (Copy on                                                                   
File).  Co-Chair Williams OBJECTED.                                                                                             
Representative Croft explained  the amendment.  He emphasized                                                                   
that the  privatization of  the prison  system bill  has been                                                                   
around   for  many  years.     He   recounted  the   numerous                                                                   
communities who have  attempted to get that  proposal and how                                                                   
devastating  it was to  each of  them.  Representative  Croft                                                                   
objected to the litany of "sole  source projects".  There has                                                                   
never been a clean proposal presented  to the Committee.  The                                                                   
proposals  are always  sole source,  with  heavy money  deals                                                                   
directed to  one contractor.   It  is always prearranged  and                                                                   
never clean.   He believed that the legislation  would result                                                                   
in sole  sourcing being  prearranged with political  pressure                                                                   
through construction and continued operations.                                                                                  
Representative Croft warned that  the State would see someone                                                                   
indicted and likely sent to prison  over the proposed series.                                                                   
He stressed that he "hates" this  type of proposal because of                                                                   
what  it  does to  the  integrity  of  the Legislature.    He                                                                   
disliked  the   "high  money   and  motives  money   and  the                                                                   
legislators".    These  proposals historically  have  left  a                                                                   
trail of  damaged communities.   Representative  Croft warned                                                                   
that Whittier would regret it at some point.                                                                                    
Senator Green  interjected that the amendment  language would                                                                   
return the  legislation to  the original  bill.  She  pointed                                                                   
out  that the  Whittier language  had been  added with  great                                                                   
deliberation.   All  the language  is  "futuristic" and  will                                                                   
result  in  a  lease-purchase   owned  by  the  State.    She                                                                   
acknowledged it would be a policy call.                                                                                         
Representative  Stoltze   commented  that  Amendment   #3  is                                                                   
important and  requested an analysis.   He inquired  if there                                                                   
had been  an overview  of the  contract between  the City  of                                                                   
Whittier and that contracting group.                                                                                            
VERN  JONES,   CHIEF  PROCUREMENT   OFFICER,  DEPARTMENT   OF                                                                   
ADMINISTRATION,  indicated that the  Department had  not read                                                                   
the contract, but  had read the City of Whittier's  RFP.  The                                                                   
procurement process  for the City of Whittier  did not comply                                                                   
with  the  State's  contract  process.    Whittier  would  be                                                                   
subjected  to their own  ordinances.   Without Amendment  #3,                                                                   
the bill  requires the City  of Whittier procurement  process                                                                   
to  comply  with   the  State's.    He  offered   to  provide                                                                   
technicalities regarding negotiation costs.                                                                                     
Representative  Hawker  acknowledged   that  the  bill  could                                                                   
resolve concerns raised by Representative  Croft.  He said he                                                                   
opposed Amendment #3.                                                                                                           
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.                                                                                       
IN FAVOR:      Croft, Stoltze                                                                                                   
OPPOSED:       Fate, Foster, Hawker, Joule, Meyer, Moses,                                                                       
               Chenalut, Williams, Harris                                                                                       
The MOTION FAILED (2-9).                                                                                                        
Representative  Stoltze  MOVED to  ADOPT  Amendment #4,  #23-                                                                   
LS0392\NA.4, Luckhaupt,  5/4/04.   (Copy on File).   Co-Chair                                                                   
Williams OBJECTED.                                                                                                              
Representative  Stoltze advised  that  the sponsor  submitted                                                                   
the amendment in order to provide clean up language.                                                                            
Senator  Green   said  it  was  obvious  that   a  provision,                                                                   
addressing  the qualification  concerns  of the  correctional                                                                   
officers,  needed  language  for  all  the hard  beds.    The                                                                   
amendment  would add  new language  highlighting the  intent.                                                                   
Co-Chair  Williams WITHDREW  his OBJECTION.   There  being No                                                                   
further OBJECTION, Amendment #4 was adopted.                                                                                    
Representative   Hawker    WITHDREW   Amendment    #5,   #23-                                                                   
LS0392\NA.11, Luckhaupt, 5/09/04.  (Copy on File).                                                                              
Representative  Croft  MOVED  to  ADOPT  Amendment  #6,  #23-                                                                   
LSO392,NA.6, Luckhaupt,  5/07/04.  (Copy on  File).  Co-Chair                                                                   
Williams OBJECTED.                                                                                                              
Representative Croft  explained that the amendment  would add                                                                   
a "small amount  of competitive nature" to the  proposal.  He                                                                   
reiterated    his    concerns   regarding    sole    sourcing                                                                   
"privatization",  creating   a  combination  for   the  worst                                                                   
aspects of government and business.                                                                                             
Senator  Green  noted   that  she  did  not   object  to  the                                                                   
amendment.  Co-Chair Williams WITHDREW his OBJECTION.                                                                           
Representative   Fate   questioned    the   powers   of   the                                                                   
Department's  commissioner  to   select  the  facility  site.                                                                   
Representative Croft responded  that language was included in                                                                   
the section about the Whittier  proposal and intended to be a                                                                   
contemplated site.   He stated  that the key aspect  was that                                                                   
it be open  for bid on a  non-preferential basis and  that it                                                                   
was  included in  the  authorization list  with  the City  of                                                                   
Representative Stoltze asked if  the proposed amendment would                                                                   
improve the  Department's "comfort  level with the  process".                                                                   
Mr.  Jones  responded  that the  language  of  the  amendment                                                                   
requires  the  competitive process  and  that  made him  more                                                                   
TAPE HFC 04 - 111, Side A                                                                                                     
Representative Hawker thought  the bill delineated a "forward                                                                   
looking  process"  and  provides   an  alignment  with  State                                                                   
statute.  He added that the amendment serves no function.                                                                       
Co-Chair  Harris  pointed  out   that  the  language  of  the                                                                   
amendment provides  a mandatory  "shall".  He  commented that                                                                   
the Department  of Corrections  commissioner had  no business                                                                   
selecting the site.  The determination  should be left to the                                                                   
party given the proposal.                                                                                                       
Representative Hawker  advised that there is  language in the                                                                   
bill that the commissioner "shall"  approve the design of the                                                                   
Representative Stoltze maintained  that the commissioner, the                                                                   
Department  and the State  should have  interest in  the site                                                                   
selection process.   The placement of prisons  and the manner                                                                   
in which they  interface with those communities  is relevant.                                                                   
The amendment would provide good benefit.                                                                                       
Co-Chair  Harris took  issue with  the  possibility of  there                                                                   
being opposition  between the State and the  public regarding                                                                   
the chosen  area.  He believed  that the language  should not                                                                   
be included, as the public should determine that policy.                                                                        
A  roll call  vote  was  taken on  the  motion  to adopt  the                                                                   
IN FAVOR:      Stoltze, Croft                                                                                                   
OPPOSED:       Fate, Foster, Hawker, Joule, Meyer, Moses,                                                                       
               Chenalut, Harris, Williams                                                                                       
The MOTION FAILED (2-9).                                                                                                        
Representative Foster MOVED to  report HCS CS SB 65 (FIN) out                                                                   
of Committee  with  individual recommendations  and with  the                                                                   
accompanying fiscal note.                                                                                                       
Representative Croft OBJECTED.                                                                                                  
Representative  Croft  referred  to  all  previous  statewide                                                                   
lawsuits resulting from such a choice.                                                                                          
Co-Chair    Harris   objected    to   comments   voiced    by                                                                   
Representative Croft.  He claimed  that the bill as currently                                                                   
written  makes it difficult  for any  Administration  to move                                                                   
forward.  He added that most of the bill is good.                                                                               
Representative  Hawker   agreed  that  the  bill   was  good,                                                                   
suggesting   that  most   concerns   had  been   thoughtfully                                                                   
advocated throughout the bill.                                                                                                  
A roll  call vote was  taken on the  motion to move  the bill                                                                   
from Committee.                                                                                                                 
IN FAVOR:      Foster, Hawker, Joule, Meyer, Stoltze,                                                                           
               Chenault, Fate, Williams, Harris                                                                                 
OPPOSED:       Moses, Croft                                                                                                     
The MOTION PASSED (9-2).                                                                                                        
HCS  CS  SB 65  (FIN)  was  reported  out of  Committee  with                                                                   
"individual" recommendations  and with fiscal note  #2 by the                                                                   
Department of Corrections.                                                                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects