Annual report / Joint Select Committee on Corrections

              JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

CORRECTIONS

Annual Report

1995

Joint Select Committee on Corrections

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

Committee Members:

Representative Joe Hart, Chairman

Representative David Armstead

Representative Robert Burns

Sam Lewis, Director

Department of Corrections

Maria Baier, Policy Advisor

Office of the Governor

Senator A. V. " Bill" Hardt

Senator Patricia Noland

Senator Carol Springer

Rudy Serino, Director

Department of Administration

October 15, 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

I . Executive Summary . . . . .

PAGE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

I1 . Proposed Prison Complex Siting Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

I11 . Additional Housing for Minors Adjudicated as Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

IV . Reception and Diagnostic Center Siting Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

V . APPENDIX

A . Enabling Legislation

B . Minutes of Proceedings

C . Supplemental Agency Materials

SECTION I..

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Laws 1994, Chapter 195 established the Joint Select Committee on Corrections to receive

testimony and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding prison construction and

operation. Membership consists of three Senators, three members of the House of

Representatives, the Director of the Department of Administration, the Director of the

Department of Corrections and a representative of the Governor's Office. The Committee is

required to report annually by October 15. Since its creation in 1994, the Committee has met

five times to consider several issues, including:

b site selection for a new prison complex;

b housing for minors adjudicated as adults;

b construction of a diagnostic and reception center; and

b methods to improve recruitment and retention of correctional service

officers.

The Department of Administration provided an overview of the construction schedule for

prison beds previously approved by the Legislature in: Winslow, Florence, Yuma, Globe, at the

Aspen Unit at the Arizona State Hospital and beds for minors adjudicated as adults. The

Department of Corrections provided the Committee with an update on construction of a

privatized, four hundred- bed DUI prison just north- west of the Maricopa County Jail.

The Committee also received testimony from the Department of Corrections relating to

inmate population growth. The Department of Corrections reported on the progress of the

implementation of the medical fees for services program, established by Laws 1994, Chapter 332

and explained that the program is expected to be successful in reducing the number of inmate

sick calls.

In December 1994, the Committee recommended that a new prison complex be

constructed at a site near the town of Buckeye, on land owned by the United States Bureau of

Land Management. After learning that an environmental impact statement would be required

prior to utilization of the property by the state, the Committee considered an alternative site

several miles south on property owned by the state of Arizona. The Committee discussed the

best site for a new prison complex during several meetings in 1994 and 1995. On August 2,

1995 the Committee recommended a 3,500 bed facility be constructed on the proposed site

located south of Buckeye and authorized the Town of Buckeye to annex the prison. Testimony

from Buckeye officials indicated that local support for the siting of a prison in the area of their

community was fairly evenly divided.

The Committee also considered the construction of a reception and diagnostic center, but

delayed a decision pending completion of a feasibility study by the Department of

Administration.

SECTION 11:

Proposed Prison Complex Siting Analysis

PROPOSED PRISON COMPLEX

SITING ANAL YSIS

The Joint Select Committee on Corrections reviewed information provided by the

Department of Corrections on alternative prison sites and after discussion at several meetings,

recommended constructing a new 3,500- bed prison complex on State Route 85, between

Buckeye and Gila Bend. Other sites considered by the Committee included:

t Casa Grande;

t Tucson;

b Apache Junction;

t the vicinity of Interstate 17 and the Carefiee Interchange;

b adjacent to I- 17 between the Pioneer Road and Desert Hills interchanges; and

t expansion of the prison complex in Florence.

Siting considerations included availability of water, utilities, housing, schools and other

amenities. Expansion of existing facilities, including the associated construction costs, was

discussed. The Committee also examined problems related to staffing, employee retention and

the availability of medical personnel.

The merits of building smaller prisons in remote areas of the state for economic

development purposes versus the construction of a large new facility were compared. Committee

members agreed that the new prison complex should include beds for minors adjudicated as

adults.

The Committee discussed in detail the advantages of the proposed site near the Town of

Buckeye versus expanding the existing complex in Florence during meetings held in June and

August of 1995. Elected officials from both communities testified at the meetings. The

Department of Corrections provided an analysis of staff recruitment considerations. The

Committee also reviewed information centering on local resources, such as housing, police, fire

and medical facilities in the respective communities necessary to support a new prison.

On August 2, 1995 the Committee recommended a 3,500 bed facility be constructed on

the proposed site located south of Buckeye and authorized the Town of Buckeye to annex the

prison.

SECTION IIk

Additional Housing for Minors Adjudicated as Adults

ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR

MINORS AD JUDICA TED AS ADULTS

The Joint Select Committee on Corrections received testimony from the Department of

Corrections on construction of additional housing for minors adjudicated as adults. In 1994, the

Forty- First Legislature approved siting of a 100- bed facility for minors adjudicated as adults in

Tucson and included funding for architect and engineering fees. Authorization included eighty male

and twenty female beds. Based on the recent growth in the commitment of male juveniles, the

Department of Corrections recommended that all one hundred beds be dedicated to juvenile males

and alternatives be sought for juvenile females, such as the addition of a second trailer at the

Perryville facility.

In 1995, the Committee recommended construction of a total of 200 minor beds in Tucson

that could be later converted to adult beds in the event that a permanent facility for minors is

constructed as a part of a new prison complex. Members of the Committee emphasized the

importance of providing housing for minors adjudicated as adults in both Tucson and Phoenix to

facilitate family contact and enable both metropolitan areas to accept responsibility for violent

juvenile offenders.

After lengthy testimony, the Committee recommended:

b construction of 200 beds for minors adjudicated as adults in Tucson which

may be converted to adults beds when a new prison complex is built in

Maricopa County; and

b the first phase of construction of a new prison complex include a 250- bed

permanent facility for minors adjudicated as adults.

SECTION IV:

Reception and Diagnostic Center Siting Analysis

RECEPTION AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTER

SITING ANALYSIS

The Joint Legislative Committee on Corrections discussed several options for expansion

of reception and diagnostic facilities for the Department of Corrections to accommodate prisoner

intake, including:

b constructing a new 500- bed Level 5 reception center on the grounds of the

State Hospital at 24th Street and Van Buren;

b modifying the existing Alhambra Reception Center, located at the Arizona

State Hospital;

b constructing a new 500- bed reception center at the prison complex in

Florence.

In the last fiscal year, over 9,000 inmates were processed into the prison system. The

Department of Corrections is currently under a court order limiting the capacity of the existing

reception and diagnostic center to 207. The Department of Corrections brought this issue to the

attention of the Committee because inmates must be processed through the reception and

diagnostic center within fourteen days to ensure compliance with this population limitation. The

Department of Corrections described the difficulties associated with meeting this population

restriction using current facilities.

The possibility of locating reception and diagnostic facilities in both the Phoenix and

Tucson metropolitan areas was discussed by the Committee. Pending completion of a feasibility

study currently being prepared by the Department of Administration which examines several

options, the Committee opted to delay a decision until 1996. The Department of Administration

is scheduled to report its findings to the Committee in December of 1995.

APPENDIX A:

Enabling Legislation

C o n f e r e n c e Engrossed

S t a t e of A r i z o n a

House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

F o r t y - f i r s t L e g i s l a t u r e

Second R e g u l a r S e s s i o n

1994

CHAPTER 195

HOUSE BILL 2542

AN ACT

AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 11.1, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY

ADDING SECTION 15- 1371.01; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE 1,

ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 41- 1607, 41- 1609.02,

41- 1610.03 AND 41- 1610.04; PROVIDING FOR DELAYED REPEAL OF SECTIONS

41- 1610.03 AND 41- 1610.04, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS ADDED BY THIS ACT;

AMENDING LAWS 1987, CHAPTER 322, SECTION 3; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS;

RELATING TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

Be it enacted by the L e g i s l a t u r e of the S t a t e of A r i z o n a :

S e c t i o n 1. T i t l e 15, c h a p t e r 11.1, a r t i c l e 1, A r i z o n a R e v i s e d

S t a t u t e s , i s amended by a d d i n g section 15- 1371.01, t o read:

15- 1371.01. E q u a l i z a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e for state e d u c a t i o n a l

system for m i n o r s i n t h e d e p a r t m e n t of

correct ions

A. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHALL PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

FOR PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS WHO ARE COMMIlTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL PROVIDE

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ON REQUEST AND SHALL

ASSIST THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS I N ESTABLISHING PROGRAM AND PERSONNEL

STANDARDS.

B. PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND WHO ATTEND AN EDUCATION PROGRAM SHALL BE

INCLUDED I N THE STUDENT COUNT OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM FOR COMMITTED

YOUTH. MONIES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR COMMITTED MINORS FROM THE STATE

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM FOR COMMITTED YOUTH SHALL BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE STATE

EDUCATION FUND FOR COMMITFED YOUTH TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR

THE COST OF PROVIDING EDUCATION TO THESE PERSONS.

C. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHALL KEEP RECORDS

AND PROVIDE INFORMATION AS THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUIRES TO

H. B. 2542

DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION ASSISTANCE. EQUALIZATION

ASSISTANCE SHALL BE USED TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES I N THIS SECTION.

D. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SHALL ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THAT ESTABLISHES THE

NECESSARY ACCOUNTABILITY BETWEEN THE TWO DEPARTMENTS REGARDING THE

ADMINISTRATIVE AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED I N SUBSECTIONS A AND B.

THE AGREEMENT SHALL:

1. PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE EDUCATION TO ALL COMMITTED MINORS AS

REQUIRED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

2. REQUIRE FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO MEET

REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUALIZATION ASS1 STANCE.

3. PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE STUDENT INTAKE AND ASSESSMENT

PROCEDURES.

4. REQUIRE STUDENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT AND THE REPORTING OF

RESULTS.

Sec. 2. T i t l e 41, c h a p t e r 11, a r t i c l e 1, A r i z o n a R e v i s e d S t a t u t e s ,

i s amended by adding section 41- 1607, t o read:

41- 1607. C o r r e c t i o n a l faci li t i e s for m i n o r s ; proarams

A. THE DIRECTOR MAY ESTABLISH AND OPERATE CORRECTIONAL F A C I L I T I E S

FOR PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS WHO ARE TRANSFERRED TO ADULT

COURT AND WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ON

CONVICTION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. THE MINOR INMATES SHALL BE KEPT

SEPARATE FROM ADULT INMATES.

B. THE DIRECTOR SHALL REQUIRE MINORS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT TO PARTICIPATE I N THE FOLLOWING INTENSIVE PROGRAMS:

1. THE FUNCTIONAL LITERACY PROGRAM ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION

31- 229.

2. AN ORGANIZED RECREATION AND PHYSICAL TRAINING PROGRAM.

3. A CITIZENSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM.

4. A LABOR PROGRAM PURSUANT TO SECTION 31- 251.

Sec. 3. T i t l e 41, chapter 11, a r t i c l e 1, A r i z o n a R e v i s e d S t a t u t e s ,

i s amended by adding section 41- 1609.02, t o read:

41- 1609.02. E s t a b l i s h m e n t of p r i v a t e prison f a c i l i t i e s ;

notice; hearinq

A. THE DIRECTOR MAY ESTABLISH:

1. PRIVATE DETENTION F A C I L I T I E S THAT ARE DEDICATED TO THE TEMPORARY

CUSTODY OF PAROLE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELEASEES WHO ARE AWAITING DUE

PROCESS HEARINGS FOR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING THEIR RELEASE CONDITIONS OR

PERSONS WHO THE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES SHOULD NOT BE RETURNED TO A REGULAR

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.

2. PRIVATE INCARCERATION F A C I L I T I E S THAT ARE DEDICATED TO THE

CONFINEMENT OF PERSONS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT ON CONVICTION

OF VIOLATING SECTION 28- 692 OR 28- 697.

B. BEFORE INCURRING ANY OBLIGATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A

PRIVATE DETENTION OR PRIVATE INCARCERATION FACILITY, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL

GIVE AT LEAST SIXTY DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE.

2. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

H. B. 2542

3. THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MINORITY LEADER.

4. THE STATE SENATOR AND THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES WHOSE

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT INCLUDES THE PROPOSED SITE.

5. ANY STATE SENATOR AND STATE REPRESENTATIVES WHOSE LEGISLATIVE

DISTRICT I S LOCATED WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE PROPOSED SITE.

6. EACH MEMBER OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I F THE PROPOSED

SITE I S I N AN UNINCORPORATED AREA OR EACH MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF

THE CITY OR TOWN I N WHICH THE PROPOSED SITE I S LOCATED.

7. EACH MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I N

WHICH THE PROPOSED SITE I S LOCATED.

C. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL HOLD A HEARING I N THE COUNTY FOR AN

UNINCORPORATED AREA OR I N THE CITY OR TOWN I N WHICH THE POTENTIAL SITE I S

LOCATED. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL POST A NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING I N A

NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION I N THE AREA AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO

THE HEARING. AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MAKE A FINAL

SITE DETERMINATION FOR THE PRIVATE DETENTION OR PRIVATE INCARCERATION

FACILITY.

D. THE FINAL SITE DETERMINATION OF A PRIVATE DETENTION OR

INCARCERATION FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE JOINT SELECT

COMMIlTEE ON CORRECTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 41- 1610.04.

Sec. 4. T i t l e 41, chapter 11, a r t i c l e 1, A r i z o n a R e v i s e d S t a t u t e s ,

i s amended by adding sections 41- 1610.03 and 41- 1610.04, t o read:

41- 1610.03. Joint select c o m m i t t e e on corrections;

members; terms; m e e t i nqs; s t a f f inq

A. THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS I S ESTABLISHED

CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS:

1. THREE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE

SENATE, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE APPROPRIATIONS

COMMITTEE, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

AND ONE OF WHOM SHALL HAVE AN ARIZONA STATE PRISON FACILITY WITHIN THE

MEMBER'S LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT. NOT MORE THAN TWO OF THE MEMBERS SHALL BE

FROM THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY.

2. THREE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPOINTED BY THE

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE THE

CHAIRPERSON OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE THE

CHAIRPERSON OF THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS COMMITTEE AND ONE OF WHOM SHALL

HAVE AN ARIZONA STATE PRISON FACILITY WITHIN THE MEMBER ' S LEGISLATI VE

DISTRICT. NOT MORE THAN TWO OF THE MEMBERS SHALL BE FROM THE SAME

POLITICAL PARTY.

3. THE GOVERNOR OR THE GOVERNOR'S DESIGNEE.

4. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OR THE DIRECTOR'S

DESIGNEE.

5. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OR THE

DIRECTOR'S DESIGNEE.

B. MEMBERS OF THE COMMIllEE SHALL ELECT A CHAIRMAN FROM THE

MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE AT THE FIRST COMMITTEE MEETING.

H. B. 2542

C. MEMBERS SERVING PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPHS 3, 4 AND 5

ARE NONVOTING MEMBERS AND ARE NOT MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING A

QUORUM. A QUORUM CONSISTS OF FOUR VOTING MEMBERS.

D. THE COMMITTEE SHALL MEET AS THE CHAIRMAN DEEMS NECESSARY OR ON

THE CALL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

E. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE

COMPENSATION BUT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES PURSUANT TO

T I T L E 38, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 2.

F. THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE STAFF AND CLERICAL SUPPORT TO THE

COMMIl7EE AND SHALL ADVISE AND ASSIST THE COMMITTEE I N PERFORMING I T S

RESPONSIBILITIES. PERSONS REPRESENTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION SHALL PROVIDE INFORMATION

AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE COMMITTEE.

41- 1610.04. Joint select c o m m i t t e e on correct ions;

duties; r e p o r t

A. THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS SHALL RECEIVE

TESTIMONY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION

SCHEDULE OF PRISON BEDS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

B. THE COMMITTEE SHALL RECEIVE TESTIMONY FROM THE DEPARTMENT

REGARDING THE ACTUAL AND ANTICIPATED GROWTH OR DECLINE I N THE DEPARTMENT'S

I NMATE POPULATION AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEG1 SLATURE REGARD I NG

THE NUMBER AND SECURITY LEVEL OF NEW PRISON BEDS THE DEPARTMENT WILL

REQUIRE TO CONFINE THE PROJECTED NUMBER OF NEW INMATES. THESE

RECOMMENDATIONS MAY INCLUDE PRIVATE PRISON FACILITIES.

C. THE COMMITTEE SHALL REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE

LEGISLATURE REGARDING FUTURE PRISONS.

D. THE COMMITTEE MAY CONSIDER OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO PRISON

CONSTRUCTION OR PRISON OPERATIONS AND MAY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE

LEGISLATURE.

E. THE COMMITTEE SHALL REVIEW PRIVATE DETENTION OR PRIVATE

INCARCERATION FACILITIES SITES PURSUANT TO SECTION 41- 1609.02.

F. THE COMMITTEE SHALL PREPARE AN ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AND SUBMIT IT TO THE GOVERNOR, PRESIDENT

OF THE SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, NO LATER THAN

OCTOBER 15 OF EVERY YEAR.

Sec. 5. D e l a y e d repeal

S e c t i o n s 41- 1610.03 and 41- 1610.04, A r i z o n a R e v i s e d S t a t u t e s , as

added by t h i s a c t are r e p e a l e d f r o m and a f t e r December 31, 1997.

Sec. 6. Laws 1987, c h a p t e r 322, s e c t i o n 3 i s amended t o read:

Sec. 3. S i t i n q of p r i v a t e c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t y

Any f a c i l i t y qe: Wmdem contracted for pursuant t o s e c t i o n 41- 1609, A r i z o n a R e v i s e d S t a t u t e s , as

amended by t h i s a c t , s h a l l be s i t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , EXCEPT ANY

FACILITY CONTRACTED FOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 41- 1609.02, ARIZONA REVISED

STATUTES, MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

Sec. 7. Appropriation; purpose

A. The sum of $ 350,000 is appropriated from the corrections fund i n

fiscal year 1994- 1995 to the department of administration. Subject to

review by the joint committee on capital review, the director of the

department of administration shall use the appropriated monies for

architectural and engineering services for a one hundred bed minor male

and minor female level 5 security classification prison facility under the

jurisdiction of the state department of corrections located at the

existing Tucson prison facility. The minor inmates shall be kept

separate from the adult inmates, and the minor female inmates shall be

kept separate from the minor male inmates.

B. Of the appropriated amount, $ 12,700 and one full- time equivalent

position shall be allocated in fiscal year 1994- 1995 to oversee the

project. Unless otherwise specified, the monies appropriated in this

section shall not be spent for personal services or employee related

expenditures of state employees, excluding any services provided as part

of the inmate construction program for correctional facilities. - Set. 8. Appropriation; purpose

A. The sum of $ 3,150,000 is appropriated from the corrections fund

in fiscal year 1995- 1996 to the department of administration. Subject to

review by the joint committee on capital review, the director of the

department of administration shall use the appropriated monies for the

construction of the one hundred bed minor male and minor female level 5

security classification prison facility established pursuant to section 3

of this act.

B. Of the appropriated amount, $ 38,000 and one full- time equivalent

position shall be allocated in fiscal year 1995- 1996 to oversee the

project and $ 40,000 and two full- time equivalent positions shall be

allocated in fiscal year 1995- 1996 for on- site project management. Unless

otherwise specified, the monies appropriated in this section shall not be

spent for persona1 services or employee related expenditure of state

employees, excluding any services provided as part of the inmate

construction program for correctional f aci 1 i ties.

AP\ ROV ED BY THE GOVERNOR APRI L 19, 1994

APPENDIX B:

Minutes of Proceedings

-.

ARIZONA HOUSE OF RBPRESENTA'IWES

INTERIM M E ~ T I N G NOTICE

Open to the Public

JOINT SELECT COMMIlTEE ON CORRECTIONS

DATE: Tuesday, November 15, 1994

TIME: 9: 30 A. M.

PLACE : House Hearing ROOM 2

AGENDA:

1) Elect a chairman

2) Department of Corrections Prison Faci 1 i ties and Inmates

Kent Bosworth, Department of Admini stration

- Construction schedule of prison beds previously authorized by the

- LEexgpilsalnaattuiroen. of proposed prison sites.

Terry Stewart, Deputy Director, Department of Corrections - Actual and anticipated growth in the inmate population, including bed

needs for juveni 1 e offenders convicted adults,

J-. CI! n mKaeteen edyi, s tDreipbaurttimoenn tb yo fr iCsokr rdeecstiigonnast ion ( number of inmates housed in

higher security faci 1 i ties because of 1 ack of room in 1 ower security

facilities.

- Foreign nationals.

- Implementation of a wellness program that focuses on aerobic exercise

and removal of all free and machine weights from facilities.

Carl Ni nk, Department of Corrections - 400 DUI and 200 RTC privatized beds at Manzanita and Winchester.

Dr. Tom Lutz, Department of Corrections - Implementation of H. B. 2014 ( prisoners; payment of medical expenses).

3) Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation

Kent Bosworth, Department of Admini stration - Johnson vs Upchurch Consent Decree ( overview)

a) Expl anation o f the Risk Assessment Model

b) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of pl acement areas f o r juveni 1 es

c) DYTR cottage rehabil i tation

- 100- bed high security juvenile f a c i l i t y f o r Y. T. R.

a) Cost analysis of free- standing f a c i l i t y i n Apache Junction

b) Cost analysis o f structure within the boundaries o f an existing

f a c i l i t y

MEMBERS :

Senator No1 and

Senator Springer

Representative Armstead

Representative Bob Burns

Representative Hart

Representative Smith &

Kurt Davi s, Governor's O f f ice

J. E l l i o t t Hibbs, Department of Administration

Samuel A. Lewi s, Department of Corrections

** People with dirabilitiea rn9 request rearonable sccornrnodationo such as interpreten, altemabhre fonnab, or assistance with

phyriccrl accwibilii. I you require rocornrnodatiom, please contact the Chid Ckrk'r Office at ( 602) 542- 3032.**

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

Minutes of Meeting

Tuesday, November 1 5, 1994

House Hearing Room 2 - 9: 30 a. m.

Members Present

Senator Hardt . . Representative Arrnstead

Senator Noland - . ~ epiesentativeR . Burns

Senator Springer Representative Smith

Kurt Davis, Ex- officio Member

Director Samuel Lewis, Ex- officio Member

Member Absed S b f E r S a

Director J. Elliott Hibbs, Ex- officio Member Teri Grier, House

Michael Mandell, House

Joni Hoffman, Senate

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

Representative Smith called the meeting to order at 9: 35 a. m. After the roll was called,

Representative Smith noted that the first order of business was to elect a chairman.

Senator Springer stated that no one has devoted as much time to issues concerning the

correction system as Representative Smith.

Senator Springer moved that Representative Smith be elected Chairman of the

Joint Select Committee on Corrections. The motion was seconded by Senator

Hardt and CARRIED by voice vote.

BACKGROUND AND CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE

Teri Grier, House Assistant Analyst, explained that a previous Joint Select Committee on

Corrections consisted of ten members, five from each legislative body. She noted that the

current Committee was established in 1994 law, with the membership changed to include

six legislative and three ex- officio members. Ms. Grier also read the charge of the

Committee.

Senator Springer commented that the Committee might want to recommend legislation to

expand its scope of authority to include the Department of Youth Treatment and

November 15,1994

Page 2

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

Rehabilitation ( DYTR). Ms. Grier suggested that a decision to expand the Committee's

scope should take into consideration the areas mentioned in letters from the House and

Senate Rules Attorneys, which indicate that the Committee is limited by statute to a review

of issues concerning the Department of Corrections ( DOC).

Representative Bums observed that the statute can be changed to address the issues

raised by the Rules Attorneys and to allow oversight of DYTR facilities by the Committee.

He noted that if the consideration of DYTR becomes too burdensome for the Joint Select

Committee on Corrections then another committee could be formed to address those

matters. Representative Smith agreed and indicated he would look into the issue further.

Director Lewis said he supports the opportunity for communication between DOC and the

Legislature that the Committee will offer. Representative Smith commented that the work

of the Committee will allow the Legislature to become fully informed about plans

concerning the prison system.

PRESENTATIONS ON PRISON FACILITIES AND INMATES

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Kent Bosworth. General Manaaer. Construction Services. Department of

Administration [ DOAL provided the following overview of the construction schedule for

prison beds previously authorized by the Legislature.

Mr. Bosworth explained that the site is located between St. Johns and Springewille and

includes a 334- bed Level 2 facility. He noted that the project is due to be substantially

complete by December 19, 1994, and is basically on schedule. Mr. Bosworth commented

on the construction of the well at the site, which is scheduled for completion on

December 30, 1994, and which represents the first effort to build a wetland- type of waste

water treatm- ent plant.

Senator Springer asked if any staffing problems are anticipated for the facility, to which

Senator Hardt said he feels there will be plenty of applicants for the positions available at

the prison.

Senator Noland asked for information on the projected construction costs, the current

status and what the final costs will be. Mr. Bosworth indicated that the project was funded

by an Apache County Certificate of Participation at $ 9.3 million, as well as an appropriation

of $ 620,000 for paving and fencing. He noted that additional blasting was required to

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

November 15,1994

Page 3

install the sewer lines, which substantially increased costs. Mr. Bosworth contended that

the project will be able to be completed with the funds on hand but it will be close.

Representative Smith asked when the facility will actually be able to take in prisoners, and

Mr. Bosworth indicated that the facility will be ready to house prisoners on the completion

date of December 19. Representative Smith asked if the project was planned to allow for

future expansion if necessary without an excessive amount of cost, to which Mr. Bosworth

answered affirmatively.

.

man Special Manaaement Unit 2

Mr. Bosworth explained that the project being built in the Eyman Complex at Florence is

a 768- bed level 5 maximum security facility. He noted that the project is on schedule for

completion by December 31, 1995.

In response to Senator Noland's question about costs, Mr. Bosworth explained that the

entire project was funded at $ 43 million and the contractor's bid was within one percent of

Mr. Bosworth's estimated cost. He observed that the inmate work program will provide

some savings, which is typically about 20 percent. He also noted that construction of a

well at the site, which involves a $ 900,000 line item, is expected to cost substantially less.

Senator Noland asked if the well was anticipated in the original cost, to which Mr. Bosworth

answered affirmatively. Senator Noland asked if the project is the most expensive because

the facility is maximum security, and Mr. Bosworth answered affirmatively.

Yuma Fa- . .

Mr. Bosworth explained that the project involves a 400- bed level 3 facility. He noted that

400 additional beds at the Yuma facility are included in the DOC five- year bed plan and will

- be a priority for the next legislative session. He anticipated the completion of the design

phase of the project to be December 1994, with construction bids due in February 1995

and completion of the project in February 1996. Mr. Bosworth stated that the first 400 beds

were funded at approximately $ 12,240,000.

Representative Smith asked how much room for expansion will be available at the Yuma

facility after the completion of the 400 beds. Mr. Bosworth pointed out that 640 acres of

land under lease from the Bureau of Reclamation is available for possible expansion.

Mr. Bosworth indicated that the project includes a 1 00- bed expansion of the current level

2 facility in Globe. He noted that the design portion is out for bids, adding that design

November 15,1994

Page 4

JOINT SELECT COMMiTEE

ON CORRECT10NS

completion is expected on March 31,1995, and occupancy is scheduled for March 1,1996.

Mr. Bosworth informed the Committee that the plan is to convert the facility into a wetland-type

system, using funds from a Joint Committee on Capital Review transfer and from the

$ 2.6 million funded for the overall project. In addition, he noted that the waste water

treatment system will be constructed by a general contractor while the rest of the facility

will be built by the inmate construction program.

Senator Hardt pointed out that a well will not have to be drilled at the site due to the near

completion of a water pipeline, which he said was the resul. t o f cooperation by the City of

Globe and others. -

Representative Smith asked if the construction will leave little room for future expansion,

to which Mr. Bosworth answered affirmatively. Director Lewis agreed it would be very

difficult to attempt any further expansion at the facility.

Mr. Bosworth commented on the conversion of the Aspen Unit at the Arizona State

Hospital to a Special Programs Unit at a cost of $ 375,000. He noted that an electrical

engineer is expected to be hired by the middle of December to design a security system

for the facility, which should take about two months.

Tucson Minor U u

Mr. Bosworth explained that the project consists of 80 maximum security cells for juvenile

males and 20 for females in the Tucson Complex, with occupancy anticipated for

December 1, 1996, at a cost of $ 3.5 million. Senator Noland asked why the occupancy

date is delayed from the original expected date of July 1996. Mr. Bosworth noted that DOA

. is still working with DOC to establish the scope of the project. Director Lewis pointed out

that the project requires review and a revised proposal will be presented to the Committee

later in the meeting.

Senator Hardt asked if there are plans to build the remaining 250 beds of the 500 that were

planned for the facility in Graham County. Director Lewis acknowledged that the facility

is expandable by 250 beds and the project can be handled cost effectively since the

infrastructure is already in place. He noted, however, that he recently suggested to

Senator Anberger and the Graham County Manager that the project be put on a

three- year timeline, with architectural and engineering fund8 requested in the upcoming

legislative session, construction funds requested in the 1996 session and actual operating

money requested in the 1997 session. Director Lewis pointed out that heatth care staffing

JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

November 15,1994

Page 5

is a problem in the area and noted that health care needs of inmates in Safford are

currently served in Tucson.

Senator Noland emphasized the need for an analysis of costs that considers all the issues

involved with locating prisons in areas of the State for economic development reasons,

such as health care, employees, turnover, recidivism and where the prisoners are coming

from, as well as a comparison of costs between existing facilities. Senator Noland noted

that the major population of inmates comes from Maricopa and Pima Counties, and she

commented on the increased expenses for family members who want to stay in touch and

assist with rehabilitation for inmates who are housed in a part of the State away from their

geographical home. She also emphasized the problems associated with the public

. demanding that the State become tougher on crime but at the same time opposing the

building of prisons in their communities.

Senator Hardt pointed out that one advantage of housing inmates in rural areas is the

opportunity of work available for the prisoners with such entities as the U. S. Forest Service.

Director Lewis commented on the importance of the resources at DOC and DOA being

used to supply the Legislature with the best data possible in terms of building and

operating prisons in a cost effective manner.

PROPOSED PRISON SITES

Mr. Bosworth addressed a potential prison site located about 22 miles north of Phoenix

adjacent to Interstate 17 between the Pioneer Road and Desert Hills interchanges

( handout filed with original minutes.) Senator Noland noted that the site is owned through

the State Land Department, and she asked if DOC would pay the going rate for the

property since that is applied to education funding. Mr. Bosworth indicated that he was not

familiar with the education funding aspect. He noted that DOC has some active leases for

various facilities, but he pointed out that lately DOA has been buying land for prisons

because they are being built with certificates of participation, with the land bought at the

appraised value.

Director Lewis advised the Committee that the Governor opposes the particular site under

discussion. Representative Smith said the opposition apparently involves a housing

development, but he indicated the need for the Committee to consider all proposals.

Senator Noland asked if the opposition concerns a Del Webb development, to which

Director Lewis answered affirmatively.

Mr. Bosworth presented another potential prison site located ten miles south of lnterstate

10 on State Route 85 between Buckeye and Gila Bend ( handout filed with original

November 15,1994

Page 6

JOINT SELECT COMM17aEE

ON CORRECTIONS

minutes). Senator Noland asked if there is any opposition to the site. Director Lewis

expressed his opposition and noted that DOC was not asked to analyze the potential site

from a correctional point of view, adding that there are substantial problems from an

operating standpoint. He recommended that DOC be given the task of analyzing both of

the potential sites from a correctional point of view and providing the Committee with the

results of that analysis.

Senator Noland indicated that Director Lewis' point was a good one, but she reiterated the

need for the further analysis that she requested earlier- concerning the differences in

operating costs for the various facilities, including emplo'yee vacancies, health care,

transportation, etc. Senator Noland observed that the travel times from central Phoenix

to the two potential sites are not that much different;

Representative Smith agreed with Senator Noland's concept of a detailed analysis, adding

that the information cooperatively gathered by DOC and DOA would help identify the

advantages and disadvantages of sites. He suggested also that an analysis should include

the possibility of expansion at a facility.

Director Lewis asked if it would be possible to consider other sites also, such as the vicinity

of Casa Grande and Apache Junction, with DOC and DOA working together to perform the

necessary analysis. Representative Smith said every possible site should be considered.

Senator Hardt emphasized the importance of assessing the objections of the residents in

a particular area before selecting a site. Representative Smith indicated that such an

element should be included when consideration is given to a site. Senator Noland

cautioned that even though no initial objections to a project have been voiced problems

could still surface later in a project.

Representative Bums commented on the importance of receiving input from the various

communities involved, which may have their own expansion plans, and from the public as

early in a project as possible.

INMATE POPULATION GROWTH

Stewart D - wDi provided an overview of the actual and projected

growth in the inmate population ( filed with original minutes). Senator Noland addressed

the information in the handout indicating that the actual monthly inmate growth of 150 is

expected to fall to an average of 90 per month as a result of the new sentencing structure.

She asked if it can be determined how many offenders included in the actual monthly

growth figure committed crimes and were sentenced under the previous criminal code.

Mr. Stewart indicated that DOC plans to develop those figures and further examine the

JOINT SELECT COMMIITEE

ON CORRECTIONS

November 15,1994

Page 7

cause of the unusual average per month to determine if the growth figure is either a

short- term aberration or a significant change in the long- term trend.

Representative Smith asked if growth projections consider the numbers of inmates in

various levels of incarceration, to which Mr. Stewart answered affirmatively.

Mr. Stewart referred to the chart reflecting the facilities currently under construction and the

facilities which have been approved and funded, noting the bed deficits for each facility

( filed with original minutes). He also commented on the 1996 capital requests listed in the

handout. -. .

Senator Noland asked how many DUls ( Driving Under the Influence) are currently in the

prison system, to which Mr. Stewart indicated that the number is about 1,100.

Representative Smith raised the issue of the cost effectiveness of building certain facilities

in such small numbers. Mr. Stewart explained that the very small numbers refer to the

construction of beds for females and juveniles convicted as adults. He noted that those

populations are so small that it is not cost effective to build a larger number and leave them

empty until the population increases.

Senator Noland asked where the female and male reception and diagnostic beds will be

located. Mr. Stewart indicated that the female beds are planned for the Penyville facility

and the male beds have not specifically been sited yet, although he said DOC feels the

beds should be located in the Casa Grande area to allow for an equal travel distance

around the State for inmates coming into the system. Senator Noland asked why a central

reception and diagnostics center has not been considered for both male and female

inmates in order to facilitate more efficient use of health care workers.

Director Lewis explained that the preponderance of Arizona's female inmates are housed

at the Perryville facility, which is where the reception and diagnostics function is performed.

He noted that DOC has not looked at the possibility of changing the location for the female

inmates since their numbers have been easy to accommodate. He pointed out, however,

that a serious problem exists in the reception and diagnostics function for male prisoners

at the State Hospital grounds. Director Lewis explained that DOC is currently under a court

order that limits the capacity to 207. He further noted that processing the inmates in and

out in less than 14 days is the only way the Department can stay within that population

cap, which places a significant strain on staff. Director Lewis stated that this is the reason

DOC has been encouraged to open a larger facility in Casa Grande, adding that he would

be willing to consider merging male and female inmates in the reception and diagnostics

facility. Director Lewis pointed out that the female reception and diagnostic beds shown

in the handout represent a mental health facility.

November 15,1994

Page 8

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

Senator Noland recommended the need for an analysis of the cost savings of a combined

reception and diagnostics facility for Casa Grande and Perryville.

POPULATION GROWTH OF JUVENILES CONVICTED AS ADULTS

Mr. Stewart referred to the population growth of juveniles in the system who are convicted

as adults ( filed with original minutes). There was a discussion concerning DOC'S

recommendation that the 100- bed juvenile facility to be built in Tucson be dedicated to

males. Senator Noland asked what the alternatives are- for female juveniles. Director

Lewis responded that the intent is to add a second- trailer afperryville. He added that as

the population of female juveniles in the system continues to grow DOC will have to

request the means to build a permanent facility.' He noted that the site does not

necessarily have to be located at Perryville, and he suggested that the analysis of costs

mentioned earlier by Senator Noland could take into account the numbers of juvenile

females.

Senator Noland said it would be appropriate in future planning to consider siting juvenile

facilities in both Tucson and Phoenix.

Representative Smith asked if there has been any consideration of housing juvenile

inmates in other states as a temporary solution.

J. C. Keenev. Assistant Director. Adult Inst~ tut~ onsD. O C, . . explained that such a

possibility was explored. He reported that the cost of housing female juveniles in California

would be on a cash only basis at about $ 300 a day per juvenile and Florida would not take

any juvenile who had taken a life, which was the case with the first female juvenile offender

tried as an adult in Arizona. Mr. Keeney noted that the other states do not have the same

law of sight and sound separation from the adult population as Arizona.

Senator Springer said she believes there were early discussions about making the 100- bed

juvenile facility in Tucson a temporary one that could be converted to house adult inmates,

with a new permanent juvenile facility eventually built as part of a new complex. She asked

if the 100 juvenile beds could be converted to adult use at minimal cost. Director Lewis

said the current concept would not lend itself to converting those beds to adult use.

Doua Tucker. Budget m e r . Governor's Office of S w c Plannina and

Budaetlna. acknowledged that the idea mentioned by Senator Springer was brought up

at one point. Senator Springer said it seems logical that a need exists for a 3,500 to 6,000

bed facility in order to minimize the cost per bed and maximize the infrastructure costs.

Senator Springer contended that a permanent juvenile facility should be part of that

JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

November 15, ' 994

Page 9

program, particularly since the location is one that ideally will be accessible to both

metropolitan counties.

Director Lewis acknowledged that Senator Springer's suggestion could be incorporated

into the idea expressed by Senator Noland concerning the siting of juvenile facilities in both

Tucson and Phoenix. Senator Springer emphasized that it is more cost effective to build

prisons of all levels at one location because of the incentives for the inmates to move

down the ladder in terms of the rating. She suggested the same concept could be used

with a juvenile section at the same facility. Director Lewis offered to review existing

facilities to determine if there are any conv- ion prbspects that could reduce

transportation costs, such as increasing the classification of some beds to allow prisoners

to do all or most of their time at one facility.

Senator Noland also suggested that another location besides Tucson be found for sex

offenders. In addition, she contended that it might be time to consider amending the

Arizona Constitution to remove the sight and sound separation for juveniles while still

allowing physical separation. She indicated that the concept is a detriment to the younger

inmates in terms of access to recreation, health care and education facilities, and is much

more expensive.

Director Lewis said it was his understanding that the Constitution only indicates that

juveniles cannot be housed with adults, adding that the sight and sound doctrine came

from an Attorney General's opinion. Mr. Keeney agreed and further explained that the

controversy began as a result of juveniles and adults being placed together in county jails.

He noted that an Attorney General's opinion about the county jail situation also addressed

the prison system. Senator Noland suggested that further research be conducted to

determine if the issue can be statutorily clarified.

INMATE DISTRIBUTION BY RISK DESIGNATION

Mr. Keeney referred to a chart reflecting inmate distribution ( filed with original minutes),

noting that in the past a number of inmates were housed in higher or lower custody than

their classification indicated they should be because of a lack of room in the appropriate

security levels.

Senator Noland asked if all individuals convicted of driving under the influence are housed

in DUI facilities. Mr. Keeney acknowledged that they are not, but he explained that DUI

inmates with extensive records or disciplinary problems are the only DUI offenders

assigned to regular prison beds.

November 15,1994

Page 10

JOINT SELECT COMMl? TEE

ON CORRECTIONS

FOREIGN NATIONALS IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

Mr. Keeney addressed the Prisoner Transfer Program through which inmates are returned

to their countries of origin under the authority of U. S. treaties with participating countries

( handout filed with original minutes). He noted that out of 1,900 potential candidates for

transfer only 20 have applied for consideration since May 1994. Mr. Keeney pointed out

that the greatest restriction to participation in the program is the treaty requirement that

candidates participate voluntarily.

Representative Smith asked how the voluntary provision ofthe policy could be changed.

Mr. Keeney explained that the federal government would have to negotiate that portion out

of the treaties. Director Lewis suggested the issue b'e taken up with the new Congress in

an attempt to resolve the problem.

Senator Noland emphasized the need to stay on top of the issue in an attempt to

encourage the federal government to assume its monetary responsibility for illegal aliens

housed in Arizona's prison system. Mr. Keeney noted that foreign nationals are being

approached at the reception center in the hope that they will volunteer to return to their

countries of origin before they become too comfortable in the prison system.

Mr. Davis commented that there has been a motion to dismiss the State's initial lawsuit

against the federal government for reimbursement, adding that he believes the State will

be successful in gaining reimbursement for the cost of detaining these people in the prison

system.

REMOVAL OF WEIGHT LIFTING EQUIPMENT

Mr. Keeney commented on the plan to remove weight lifting equipment and to implement

. . an exercise program and fitness course in all prison locations ( handout filed with original

minutes).

PRISON PRIVATIZATION

t Director. C o m m wC ometiom D mpr ovided an update of the

Marana project, which is the first State incarceration facility to be privatized and is designed

to house 450 minimum custody inmates. He noted that the inmates assigned to the facility

are in need of alcohol and drug treatment, adding that the facility currently houses 209

inmates. In response to Representative Smith, Mr. Nink indicated that the facility will be

fully occupied by the middle of December.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

November 4 5, 4 444

Page 11

Senator Noland suggested that the Department keep good statistical inforrnation on the

outcome and the population being served at the facility in comparison to other DUI facilities

and prisons in order to determine the effectiveness of the program. Mr. Nink stated that

DOC is progressing in the gathering of that inforrnation.

Mr. Nink addressed the handout relating to privatization of 200 return- to- custody beds and

400 DUI beds ( filed with original minutes). Senator Hardt asked if the facilities will be

operated at no cost to the State, to which Mr. Nink answered affirmatively.

Mr. Nink briefed the Committee on the privatized dmg treahent programs planned for the

Winchester and Manzanita Units ( handout filed with original minutes).

Senator Noland said it might be appropriate to analyze recidivism rates since release

programs are now being handled directly from the prisons rather than release centers.

Representative Smith emphasized the importance of education and treatment programs

in the rehabilitation of inmates. He commented on the excellent education programs at the

Tucson facility and expressed concern about the quality of programs in some of the other

prisons. He also asked if it will ever be possible to eliminate the supply of drugs inside the

prisons.

Director Lewis acknowledged that the various institutions tend to focus on different areas,

which explains some of the fluctuations in programs around the system. He also

expressed concern about the inadequate number of treatment counselors in the prison

system. Director Lewis said he shares Representataive Smith's concern about the drug

problem in the prisons, but he advised that it is virtually impossible to totally eliminate the

situation even though DOC does everything it can within existing resources to address the

issue.

MEDICAL FEES FOR SERVICE

Dr. Thomas A s s b t Director. Hmlth Services. DOC, provided an overview of

the medical fee for service in the correctional system that was passed by the Legislature

in the last session ( handout filed with original minutes). He noted that it is too early in the

implementation process to establish any data, but he added that early returns indicate the

program will be a success in reducing the number of sick calls.

Senator Noland observed that the program appears to provide inmates with needed

medical services in a much more expedient manner. However, she noted that prisoners

attempting to obtain over- the- counter medicines at the prison store may have to wait so

November 15,1994

Page 12

JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

long that they decide to go through the sick call system since that process is experiencing

a quicker turn- around time.

DISCUSSION

Representative Smith emphasized the need to identify potential prison locations through

a detailed analysis performed in a combined effort by DOC and DOA. He suggested that

the Committee try to identify locations by the end of December in order to be ready for the

next legislative session. p -.

Senator Noland referred back to her original request that an analysis of a site also consider

existing facilities, including construction costs, operational differences and employee

vacancies. Representative Smith also suggested that an analysis include which existing

facilities can be expanded and the costs involved.

Director Lewis complimented his staff on their presentations. He reiterated the importance

of a joint effort between DOC and DOA in analyzing prison sites. He also emphasized the

need for the Committee to hold regular meetings.

The meeting adjourned at 12% p. m.

Respectfully submitted,

JUCC. S~ tel l

Committee Secretary

( Attachments and tapes are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.)

REVISED REVISED

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

INTERIM MEETING NOTICE

Open to the Public

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

DATE: Wednesday, December 28, 1994

TIME: 9: 30 A. M.

PLACE: Senate Hearing Room 2

AGENDA :

1) Call toorder.

2) Secretary to note attendance.

3) Department of Corrections Prison Faci 1 i ti es and Inmates.

Stan Bates, Assistant Director of Administration

- Presentation of potential prison locations, including consideration

of existing facil ities, construction costs, operational differences,

employee vacancies, and possi bi 1 i ty and cost of expansion.

J. C. Keeney, Assistant Director of Adult Institutions

- Analysis of the cost savings of a combined reception and diagnostics

facility for both male and female inmates at Casa Grande and

Perryville.

- Review of existing facilities to determine if there are any

conversion prospects that could reduce transportation costs.

Terry Stewart, Deputy Director

- Analysis of overcrowding and bed needs.

Bill Gaspar, Deputy Warden of Rincon Unit

- Discussion of provisions in statute requiring juveniles to be housed

separately from adults.

( more)

4) Department of Corrections Departmental Issues.

S- haron UMpadyaetse, Aosn sisrteacnrtu iDtimreenctt oarn do f Hruemtaenn tiRoens ourocfe s Correctional Service

Officers , i ncl udi ng vacancy factors and turnover.

- Discussion of privatized 400- bed DWI prison.

5) Additional i tems for discussion.

6) Adjourn.

Representative Tom Smith, Chairman

MEMBERS :

Senator Hardt

Senator No1 and

Senator Springer

Representative Armstead

Representati ve Burns

Representative Smith

Kurt Davis, Governor's Office, ex officio

3. Ell iott Hibbs, Department of Administration, ex officio

Samuel A. Lewis, Department of Corrections, ex officio

** People with disabilities may requw reasonable sccommoddom such ar interpretm, alternative formats, or assistance with

physical accessibility. If you require accommodations, please contact the Chld Clerk's Office at ( 602) 542- 3032...

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE ON CORRECTIONS

Minutes of Meeting

Wednesday, December 28,1994

Senate H- earing Room 2 - 9: 30 a. m. Senator Noland Representative R. Bums

Senator Springer ~ epresentativeS mith, Chairman

Director J. Elliott Hibbs, Ex- officio Member

Director Samuel Lewis, Ex- officio Member - Senator Hardt

Members Absea

Representative Armstead

Kurt Davis, Ex- officio Member

a&€

Teri Grier, House

Kathi Knox, House

Lance Johnson, Senate

Representative Smith called the meeting to order at 9: 35 a. m. and attendance was noted.

. . f

provided a handout reflecting two potential prison sites that were

presented to the Committee at its last meeting and four additional sites to be addressed

by Mr. Bosworth ( filed with original minutes). He noted that the sites are listed in order of

priority as deemed appropriate by DOC.

Kent Rosw( Ut) l. Gmeral - r for Construction Sewices. D e w e n t

A d m ~ n ~ s t r aID~ OnA ), . . of

provided handouts ( filed with original minutes) and reviewed

potential prison sites at the 1- 17 Carefree Interchange, as well as sites in Casa Grande,

Tucson and Apache Junction. Mr. Bosworth noted that there is opposition to the 1- 17

Carefree Interchange location since the City of Phoenix has annexed the land south of the

Carefree Highway and has a master plan that calls for residential development of the area.

Representative Smith asked what impact the Casa Grande site would have on the tumover

of Correctional Service Officers ( CSOs) at the Florence facility. Mr. Bates acknowledged

that the Casa Grande site would have some impact on staff turnover, but he pointed out

that the proposal is for a small facility to be used as a reception center. He suggested the

location is logical since it is halfway between the two major metropolitan areas. Senator

Noland asked if DOC has considered the problems that occurred in obtaining medical

December 28,1994

Page 2

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTlONS

personnel at the state- run center for retarded citizens at Coolidge. Mr. Bates said the

Department has not looked at the issue but he contended that DOC has been able to fairly

well maintain the professional staff at the Florence faciltty. He added that prior to 1979 the

reception center process was located in Florence. Senator Noland suggested that DOC

be certain about the issue by reviewing the personnel situation at the Coolidge facility.

Representative Smith asked how far the Apache Junction site is from the Gold Canyon

Ranch housing development, to which Mr. Bosworth indicated the distance is about two

miles. -. .

Mr. Bates further addressed the four potential sites in the handout, noting that the first

priority for DOC is the 1- 17 Carefree Interchange. He suggested the area offers the best

availability for staff that will not compete with other prison locations. Mr. Bates reiterated

that the Casa Grande site would be an excellent location for a reception center and small

prison complex. He also noted that the Tucson proposal represents a good location due

to the amount of land and staffing available. He added that the Apache Junction property

is the second best location in the Maricopa County metropolitan area to site a prison,

' although he said there are some concerns about the water supply that need to be further

addressed.

In addressing sites discussed at the previous meeting, Mr. Bates said DOC'S main concern

with the Buckeye property is its location of 24 miles southwest of the Penyville facility,

which will compete for CSOs and professional staff. Senator Noland suggested that the

Carefree site would also have an impact on staffing. Mr. Bates acknowledged there would

be some impact but he contended it would be less than that of the Buckeye location.

Mr. Bates commented on the 1- 17 Pioneer Interchange site, noting that it was pointed out

at the last meeting that the Governor is opposed to that particular location.

Mr. Bates addressed a handout indicating potential expansion of existing prison facilities

( filed with original minutes). He noted that the first page of the handout lists those facilities

that DOC does not recommend as suitable for expansion. In addition, Mr. Bates advised

the Committee of a situation at the Douglas facility in which a citizens' group has filed a

complaint against the Departments wastewater treatment plant, which is operated by

Cochise County in a lease agreement with DOC. Mr. Bates said the concern is that under

the lease agreement Cochise County could turn the operation of the plant over to DOC at

a $ 2.5 million operating cost, He indicated that DOC plans to meet with the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quaidy and DOA to address whether the sewage can be

hauled to avoid extensive fines. Representative Smith requested that the Committee be

kept advised of the situation, including an analysis of any solutions that may be available.

JOINT SELECT COMMlllEE

ON CORRECTIONS

December 28,1994

Page 3

Mr. Bates explained to the Committee that the second page of the handout lists the prison

facilities the Department feels are more appropriate for expansion. He noted that the

existing Tucson complex could be expanded by an additional 100 beds for juveniles in

conjunction with the 100 beds that have already been authorized by the Legislature.

Bill Gwar. D~ putvW argen. Rhcon Unit explained that his unit contains the minors

facility in the Tucson complex, which is currently at its full capacity of 78. He commented

on the growth of the numbers of juveniles in the adult prison system and the projected

need for the additional 100 beds. He also suggested that male and female juvenile

facilities be included when a new complex is planned, with the 200 beds in the Rincon Unit

then being converted back to adult population use. .

Senator Noland reiterated her belief that facilities for juveniles incarcerated as adults

should be located in both Phoenix and Tucson, which will facilitate family contact and

enable both metropolitan areas to accept responsibility for violent juvenile offenders.

Director Lewis observed that DOC'S proposal is a temporary one in which male juveniles

would be housed initially in the 200 beds to be built in the Rincon Unit, which is a medium

secunty adult male facility. He indicated that when the Legislature decides to build a new

prison complex it could choose to retain 100 of the juveniles in the existing beds in Tucson

while the others could be housed in the new complex at whatever location is chosen by the

I Legislature.

Senator Noland asked if the additional 100 beds could be located at Penyville or a facility

other than in Tucson. She also emphasized the need to consider the female juvenile

population, noting that lawsuits may become an issue with female juveniles being housed

in trailers. Director Lewis noted that the handout includes a proposal for 20 temporary

. female juvenile beds at Penyville. However, he noted that no other proposal is included

for Perryville since DOC has been advised from a variety of sources that Perryville will not

be considered for expansion.

Representative Smith agreed that juvenile facilities should be located in both Phoenix and

Tucson. He suggested it would be more cost effective and allow the Department to

address population growth with construction of a 200- bed juvenile facility in Tucson and

identification by the end of January of a site for the new prison complex that will include

100 or 200 beds for juveniles. Director Lewis indicated that the approach presented by

DOC recommends expansion of those facilities that are appropriate through the cheapest

and quickest method of construction, which would then put the new prison complex about

three years in the future. He emphasized that construction of additional juvenile beds

cannot wait three years, which is the reason DOC recommends from a planning point of

December 28,1994

Page 4

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

view the construction of 200 juvenile beds in the Rincon facility to be built to the footprint

of the existing adult male facility in Tucson.

Mr. Gaspar informed the Committee that 80 percent of the minors currently incarcerated

in the adult prison system come from Maricopa County and other counties to the north.

He also noted that the past six months of intake and projected departures for the next six

months indicate that the juvenile male population will be slightly over 220 male minors by

the time the new facility opens in December 1996.

Senator Noland suggested that DOC'S presentationwas politically slanted since it did not

include expansion at Perryville as an option. She. emphasized the need to receive all

pertinent information from DOC in order to make decisions about prison locations,

expansions and availability of personnel.

Senator Springer disagreed with Director Lewis' expansion idea, particularly as it pertains

to the Winslow facility. She expressed concem about staffing, housing and transportation

problems in the area. In addition, Senator Springer contended it is bad policy for the

Legislature to continually authorize the construction of smaller prisons in remote locations

for economic development purposes. She emphasized that a commitment to building a

new large prison would deter some of those political pressures. Senator Springer

suggested that the new facillty be located in the Phoenix area and that a juvenile facility

be included as part of the initial construction.

Commenting on the site proposals, Senator Springer said the Casa Grande location should

be disregarded since the concept involves a small facility. She also contended the Apache

Junction site should be disregarded because of the water situation and the proximtty of the

location to a new housing development. She observed that the initial 1- 17 site, which she

contended was the most appropriate location, was apparently eliminated because of

residential development ii1 the area. Ser r& or Springer further stated that the 1- 1 7 Carefree

Interchange property also has the potential for too much development around it.

Senator Springer contended the best potential site is the property in Buckeye, and she

expressed concern that the priorities listed in DOC's chart are slanted against the location.

She urged the Committee to recommend the Buckeye property as the site for a new large

facilrty that will ultimately consist of about 5,000 to 6,000 beds.

Director Lewis maintained that it was not DOC's intent to slant any of the information it

presented. He said the Department merely wanted to point out those locations it feels are

most appropriate as prison sites from an operational standpoint, taking into account the

most economical approach. Director Lewis agreed that building out the Winslow facility

may be questionable. However, he said he thought the idea was at least worth discussing

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

December 28, 3 934

Page 5

because expansion would be cost effective and recruiting of personnel in the area is not

as serious a problem as a few years ago. Director Lewis acknowledged that DOC does

not like the Buckeye site as a prison location. However, he assured the Committee that

the Department would do a good job of running a prison at the site if the Legislature

chooses the Buckeye location.

Representative Smith said he believes the Buckeye property is the best location. He

emphasized the need to vigorously attack the problem of the expanding prison population

by focusing on construction of a largefacility rather than continuing with a patchwork type

of approach.

Senator Springer said it has been one of her priorities to stop the budget practice of

borrowing from the State Corrections Fund to supplement General Fund expenditures.

She emphasized the need for those monies to be replaced in the Corrections Fund and to

be committed to the building of a new large prison facility.

Senator Noland commented on the need for an industrial development authority project for

housing in the Buckeye area if a large facility is built at that location and in Florence in

order to attract personnel to those areas.

Mr. Bates further addressed the chart concerning potential expansion of existing prison

facilities. He said the expansion recommendations for the Safford and W~ nslowfa cilities

pertain to later years of the five- year plan to ensure that the staffing situations will continue

to improve. He noted that DOC feels the Yuma facility can be built out cost effectively

since there is a full section of land and water available.

Representative Smith asked how long it would take to have a new large facility ready to

house inmates. Mr. Bosworth replied that a master plan takes about six to nine months

to complete, after which design and utility runs would begin. He noted that the $ 2 million

contained in DOC'S capital budget request for the initial master planning includes the

running of utilities to the site. Mr. Bosworth explained that construction on a level 2 facility

takes about four months for design and ten months for construction and a level 5 facility

takes about six months for design and 18 months for construction.

Senator Noland asked if one level could be completed and in use while another level is

being constructed, and Mr. Bosworth indicated that is how the prisons are typically

constructed. Representative Smith asked if the juvenile facility could be included in the

initial phase of construction, to which Mr. Bosworth answered affirmatively.

Director Lewis requested dreicoitn from the C~ rnmitteeo n the Perryville expansion issue.

Senator Noland asked if DOC has received complaints about locating the female juveniles

December 28,1994

Page 6

JOINT SELECT COMMIITEE

ON CORRECTlONS

at Perryville. Director Lewis said the Department has had no discussions with anyone

about juveniles being housed at the location. However, he noted that the information he

received during the last session was that the Legislature is not interested in expanding the

Perryville facility. Senator Springer said she understands that the Legislature promised the

local community that the Perryville facility would not be expanded. She contended the

current Legislature should honor that commitment and not consider any further expansion

at Perryville. Senator Noland observed that previous Legislatures cannot bind future

Legislatures. She countered that expansion of Perrpille should be a part of the

discussions, after which the political realities could- be addressed.

In response to a question from Senator Springer concerning the size of a new prison

complex, Mr. Bates explained that DOC builds prisons as 800- bed prototypes and four can

be grouped together to house 3,200 inmates. He added that two complexes would house

6,400 prisoners. Mr. Bates further noted that such a plan would handle inmate growth for

only about five years.

Senator Springer moved that the Joint Select Committee on Corrections

recommend the Buckeye site for the location of a new prison with a potential

ultimate capacity of 6,400 beds to be planned immediately, with the idea that

the facility will incorporate a ZOO- bed facility for juveniles in the first phase.

Director Lewis suggested the number of beds for juveniles be increased to 300 if the facility

is to also accommodate female juveniles. Senator Noland noted that the motion does not

preclude the expansion of the juvenile facilities in Tucson with the ability for males and

females to be housed at both sites.

The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

Senator Noland moved that the Chairman appoint a subcommittee to address

the housing situations at the Buckeye site and the Florence facility through

consideration of industrial development authority bonds and other

mechanisms to provide rental and for- purchase housing. She also moved

that the subcommittee be required to report its recommendations to the full

Commitbe.

Representative Bums suggested there might be a similar need in other areas of the State.

Senator Noland contended the Buckeye and Florence locations are priority issues. She

added that once those locations are addressed the project can be expanded to other

areas.

The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

JOINT SELECT COMMlREE

ON CORRECTIONS

December 28,1394

Page 7

Senator Noland moved that the juvenile capacity in the Tucson facility be

expanded by 100 beds and include both male and female inmates, contingent

upon the construction of the 200 beds for juveniles at the Buckeye location

or another site that may be chosen in the Phoenix area.

The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

J* C. Keeney* DirecW far Adult Instlfybonsm DOC, . . commented on carry- over

issues from the last meeting. He stated that the Department agrees there is a need for a

combined male and female reception and diagnosiics center. However, he contended

DOC needs to further discuss the location of the center, noting that the costs for

transporting prisoners to and from the Buckeye site would be exorbitant.

In addition, Mr. Keeney commented on possible conversions of classification levels of

existing prisons to reduce statewide transportation costs. He advised that 400 level 4 beds

could be converted to level 5 in both the Winslow facility and the Cimarron Unit in the

Tucson complex. However, Mr. Keeney cautioned against converting more beds to the

more expensive level 5 than are necessary, adding that DOC would like to study the issue

further. Mr. Keeney also pointed out that by 1997 the prison system will be short of female

beds, and he recommended converting the North Unit 2 beds in Florence back to female

use for a period of time until a new female facility is available.

Director Lewis asked if the Committee would consider a reception and diagnostics center

at the Casa Grande site, which has good accessibility to Phoenix, Tucson and Florence.

Senator Springer questioned if it is possible to consider an intake facility in both the

Phoenix and Tucson areas, possibly using existing facilities. Director Lewis indicated he

would be willing to look into the issue of two intake centers. However, he explained that

an intake facility has to be a level 5, and he pointed out there are no existing level 5

facilities in Tucson. Director Lewis indicated that probably 200 general population beds

would have to be converted to level 5. He added that it would be difficult to give up those

beds and the conversion would be an expensive proposition.

Mr. Keeney contended that 200 beds are not available to spare for such a conversion. He

noted that 150 inmates are currently backed up in jails and cannot be processed into the

prison system.

Representative Smith suggested that a reception and diagnostics center in Casa Grande

be considered but that other alternatives also be developed. Mr. Keeney commented on

the need for space to perform an adequate diagnostics function. Senator Noland asked

if there is an expansion capability at the State Hospital, to which he indicated there is not.

Senator Noland indicated that more information is necessary on the cost of transporting

December 28,1994

Page 8

JOINSTE LECT COMMIITEE

ON CORRECTIONS

inmates to a center versus the cost of medical and diagnostics personnel at two sites.

Senator Noland also noted that she plans to introduce a bill in the upcoming session

requiring offenders sentenced to life without possibility of parole to be maintained in a level

5 facility.

Tern Stewart D e w c t o r . nOC, noted that at the last meeting there was discussion

about using a growth projection of 90 inmates a month as a planning number after

adjustments for truth in sentencing laws and aggravatqd DUls ( Driving Under the

Influence). He noted, however, that the actual monthly growth in the recent past has been

150 or more. Mr. Stewart provided a handout ( filed with original minutes) reflecting the

population forecast for the male general population, females and male DUls. He explained

that based on the last 38 months of data DOC will be using the planning number of 100

inmates per month instead of 90.

Senator Noland expressed concern about the growth projection of 100 becoming ingrained

in the process. She pointed out that the number was revised based on the past 38 months

while truth in sentencing provisions and criminal code revisions have not been in effect for

a full year. Mr. Stewart contended the 100 number is a very conservative figure as

opposed to the actual growth over the last year of 150 per month. He explained that the

Department will use the figure through at least this year and then do another projection.

Director Lewis observed that DOC'S plan is to keep 500 inmates in tents. He also noted

that because of careful double bunking the Department feels it can manage the prison

system with about 1,000 more inmates than are in design capacity beds. He added that

the number will be watched closely and adjusted if necessary.

Mr. Stewart commented on the second page of his handout indicating the first three years

, of the five- year bed plan. He indicated that some of the inforrnation will need revisions due

to the actions taken by the Committee.

Senator Noland asked if technical violations are included in the growth- per- month figure,

to which Mr. Stewart answered affirmatively. Senator Noland asked what percentage

involves technical violations, and Mr. Stewart indicated he did not have that number with

him. Senator Noland reiterated her concern about adjusting the projection without all the

inforrnation available, and she pointed out that she and the Chairman are working on

parole and technical violation issues for the upcoming legislative session. Representative

Smith said his discussion with Doug Tucker of the Governor's Budget Office indicates the

figure of 100 is fairly consewative. However, he agreed with the need to watch the number

closely.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

December 28,1994

Page 9

Mr. Gaspar addressed a handout providing background on the requirement of juveniles to

be housed separately from adults and the current practice in maintaining that separation

at the Tucson complex ( filed with original minutes).

Representative Smith noted that the statute states that minors cannot be confined in a cell

or room with adults, which he said is quite different than sight and sound separation.

Mr. Gaspar agreed but noted that an Attomey General's opinion in 1972 stated that minors

could not commingle with adults for purposes of educational programs. Senator Noland

contended the opinion is still different than sight and- sound separation, and she questioned

if a further Attomey General's opinion developed that requirement. Mr. Gaspar noted that

an opinion by Attomey General Corbin in 1979 was in response to the Executive Director

of the Arizona State Justice Planning Agency, who asked if juveniles are allowed to be

detained in jails used primarily for incarcerated adults and if the juveniles are permitted to

have sight and sound contact with adults. Mr. Gaspar explained that Attomey General

Corbin's opinion stated that it is not permissible to have any sight or sound contact

between juvenile and adult prisoners. Senator Noland asked if the opinion is based on the

statute or the Arizona Constitution, to which Mr. Gaspar noted that the opinion was based

on case law.

Senator Noland commented on the need to clarify in statute that juveniles are to be

separated from the adult population but without the requirement of sight and sound

separation. Director Lewis pointed out that DOC has always been mindful of the sight and

sound requirement but that it is practically impossible to achieve. He offered to work with

the Attomey General's Office on language to clarify the issue.

Senator Noland moved that legislation be proposed for the upcoming session

to clarify the original intent of the language concerning the separation of

juveniles from adult inmates.

The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

Carl Nink. m i r e c p p rfo r Commitv Correcti~~ DsO. C, briefed the Committee

on the Department's progress on the privatized 400- bed DUI prison, which is planned for

an industrial area located just northwest of the Maricopa County Jail. He explained that

the per diem rate for full occupancy will be $ 36 per inmate or $ 2 less than what DOC

estimated the cost to be if it operated a similar facilrty, with a potential savings to the State

of $ 292,000 annually at full occupancy. Mr. Nink further noted that the private correctional

company plans to hire 88 employees predominantty from the local area. He added that the

company plans a continuing effort of aggressive communtty involvement as a part of the

siting process. He added that the activation date of the facility is May 1, 1995.

December 28,1994

Page 10

JOINT SELECT COMMlTTEE

ON CORRECTIONS

Senator Noland asked if DUI offenders are still housed in tents. Mr. Nink answered

affirmatively, noting that about 100 tent beds are located in the Aspen Unit at the Arizona

State Hospital with about 80 inmates currently in residence. Senator Noland asked if those

inmates will be transferred into the new DUI facility, to which Mr. Nink answered

affirmatively. Director Lewis explained that the tents will then be taken down, but he added

that the tents at Perryville and Tucson will remain. He said the Department will probably

look for another site for the 100 tent beds that will come from the State Hospital grounds.

Sharon Maves. As* Oirector for Human Resources. DOC, provided an ovewiew

on the hiring and retention of CSOs. She explained that the Department has initiated a

number of steps in its efforts to take a very progressive stance at recruitment, including the

establishment of walk- in centers throughout the State and the reduction of the medical

standards for CSOs from 35 percent to 25 percent. Ms. Mayes advised there is a 16

percent turnover rate for CSOs, with most of the vacancies from the Florence- Eyman area.

She emphasized the need for a CSO salary increase to address the problems of

recruitment and retention.

Representative Smith observed that the retention problem is greater in the period before

Corrections Officers reach the CSO II level, and he suggested that perhaps some type of

promotion or recognition during that period might alleviate the turnover problem.

Ms. Mayes acknowledged that the idea is worth considering, and she pointed out that the

pay plan currently being addressed with the Governor's Budget Office includes some

incentives for cadets graduating from the academy. Ms. Mayes also explained that DOC

has developed a leadership academy for sergeants that will begin in January.

Director Lewis commented on a proposal from the Governor's Budget Office for a CSO Ill,

which would be a specialist position. However, he noted that the Department is not quite

. sure which jobs would be moved to that position or how the entire operation of the agency

would be affected.

Senator Noiand observed that these same kinds of problems will coniinue to occur in every

department until an entire personnel system is developed with various steps within each

category. She suggested that DOC consider a plan that was developed for the

Department of Public Safety which added three steps within the categories for officers.

Senator Noland wondered why retention is such an issue in the Eyman Unit, and she

asked if there are management problems. Director Lewis said he does not believe

there are management problems, and he indicated that the unit has a new senior warden

who is on track with specific measures for improved personnel management. He also

noted that the unit has outstanding deputy wardens. Director Lewis said the Florence

prison fares better than Eyman in the area of retention since the complex is older and the

JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE

ON CORRECTlONS

December 28,1994

Page 11

personnel have settled in and do not want to move into new units. Director Lewis

concluded by stating that given the resources of DOC and all of the attendant problems the

Legislature can still be genuinely proud of the people who work in the Department.

The meeting adjourned at 11: 35 a. m.

Respectfully submitted,

unite C. Stell

Committee Secretary

( Attachments and tapes are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.)

ARUONA STATE LEGISLA=

E E T I N G N O T I C E

Open to the Public

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

DATE: Friday, March 17, 1995

TIME: 9: 00 a. m.

PLACE: House Hearing Room 2

SUBJECT: Agenda

1) Election of chairman

2) Discussion of DUI f a c i l i t y .

REPRESENTATIVE $ OM SMITH v

MEMBERS :

Senator Hardt

Senator No1 and

Senator Springer

Representative Armstead

qepresentat i ve Burns

Representative Hart

Represent at i ve Smith

Maria Baier, Governor's O f fi ce

Rudy Serino, Department of Admini s t r a t i on

Samuel A. Lewis, Department o f Corrections

P s

- CF_ * 3*/ P1.4op/ 9h5 w ith dk. MIWkr m ym ( u. rt maaombb . ctomrnoddocu ruoh a# interpreten, alt. mdve formatl, or wirtance with

phydcd & biltly. tf you require acmnmod. bionr, p h w con- the Chid CI. rk'r Office d ( 602) 542- 3032**

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

Friday, March 17, 1995

9: 00 a. m.

House Hearing Room 2

Members Present

Representative Tom Smith

Senator Carol Springer

Representative David Armstead

Representative Bob Burns

Representative Joe Hart

Representative Tom Smith

Maria Baier, Governor's Office

Samuel A. Lewis, Department of Corrections

Members Absent

Senator " A. V." Bill Hardt

Senator Patricia Noland

Rudy Serino, Department of Administration

Representative Tom Smith called the meeting to order at 9: 07 a. m. and informed the

Committee that since he was no longer the Chairman of the Public Institutions and

Universities Committee, statutorily, he was not eligible to be chairman of the Joint Select

Committee. Representative Smith said a new chairman would need to be elected, but that

he would be available for providing information on what the Committee has done so far.

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

Senator Springer moved that Representative Hart be elected chairman of the

Joint Select Committee on Corrections. Senator Burns SECONDED the

motion. Motion CARRIED by voice vote.

Representative Hart said he appreciated the vote of confidence demonstrated by the

Committee in selecting him to be chairman. Representative Hart told the Committee it was

a hard task for Arizona to provide a safe environment for its citizens, and that he looked

forward to working towards that goal.

DISCUSSION OF DWI FACILITY

Carl Nink, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, distributed a

briefing paper entitled " Joint Select Committee on Corrections Review Siting of 400 Bed

DWI Prison" ( filed with original minutes) and explained the Department of Corrections

( DOC) gave notice of its intent to site a private 400 bed DWl prison at 3402 W. Cocopah

to the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, the Senate and House Minority

Page 2

March 17, 1995

Minutes of the Joint Select Comm~ ttee

on Corrections

Leaders, the legislators within the district the prison is to be sited, the mayor, the Phoenix

City Council and all members of the school boards in which the proposed site is located.

Mr. Nink stated 52 individuals were present at a public hearing in January and of that

number, four spoke in favor of the project, two were undecided, and one was opposed to

the project. Mr. Nink added a hearing for a special use permit would take place before the

Phoenix City Council on March 22, 1995.

Senator Springer asked who would be placed in the facility and if it would be referred to

as a prison, noting confusion expressed by residents near the Marana facility. Mr. Nink

responded there would be 400 DWI inmates who may also have a lesser offense such as

shoplifting in addition to the DWI charge and that the facility would be referred to as a

prison. Senator Springer asked what type of area the site was in. Mr. Nink explained the

area is mainly industrial although residential property is close by but separated from the

proposed site by another industrial building and a railroad track. Mr. Nink told the

Committee the building was currently an industrial one made entirely of cement which will

need some renovation. It is anticipated the site would be ready for use in August, 1995.

Representative Bums asked what kind of public information campaign had been launched

in the neighborhood. Mr. Nink explained Esmor Correctional Services had provided

pamphlets in both English and Spanish and that they had made a commitment to the

community to actively inform all those who would be affected.

Representative Armstead asked if people would be moved from the 24th Street facility to

the new facility and how the 24th Street facility would continue to be used. Mr. Lewis

explained those DWI cases would be transferred and prisoners with mental handicaps

would be transferred to the 24th Street unit for care from Florence State Prison which

would open up more beds at Florence. Mr. Lewis estimated the number of inmates to be

moved from Florence to 24th Street at 150.

Brenda Borquez, representing herself, stated support for the prison and noted that

Esmor had committed to working with the neighborhood in searching for employees for the

new facilrty. Ms. Borquez added all " Block Watch" captains in the area had been provided

with information on the facility to distribute in their areas.

Robert Zamon, representing himself, stated support for the prison and noted the

expected tax revenues to be realized by the State and the school districts in the area. Mr.

Zamora explained there was overwhelming support for the facility in his neighborhood.

Representative Burns asked if the facility, in light of its contracted status, would be

monitored on site by the DOC. Mr. Lewis said it would.

Minutes of the Joint Select Co. mmittee

on Corrections

?; lye: 5

March 17, 1995

Senator Springer moved the approval of the report submitted by Mr. Nink, and

further moved to endorse the decision of Mr. Sam Lewis in support of this

project Representative Burns SECONDED the motion.

Reverend J. P. Grammer, representing himself, spoke against the prison, pointing out

there are already five jails within a one and a half mile radius of his neighborhood and

within a half mile radius of a grade school. Reverend Grammer stated he had received no

notice on the intent of the DOC to site a prison in the area and that he was sure people in

his area would not qualify for jobs mentioned at the facility.

The motion CARRIED by voice vote.

Representative Tom Smith gave the Committee information on the Capital Outlay bill

passed on March 16, 1995, noting that it contained provisions for an additional 200

juvenile beds for those remanded to the adult facilities. Representative Smith added he

had received a letter from the mayor of Buckeye, advocating a prison site several miles

south of the area being considered at today's meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 940 a. m.

Respectfully submitted,

&& i*

Arlene Seagraves, Commi e Secretary

( Tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate)

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

DATE:

TIME:

PLACE :

8UBJECT :

I N T E R I M M E E T I N G N O T I C E

Open to the Public

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

Thursday, June 1, 1995

1: 30 p. m.

House Hearing Room 2

Agenda :

1. Siting of new prison complexes

2, Housing of minor inmates adjudicated as

adults

3. Location and composition of reception

center ( s)

Members :

Representative Hart, Chairman

Representative Armstead

Representative R. Burns

Director Sam Lewis

Department of Corrections

Rudy Serino

Department of Administration

Senator Hardt

Senator Noland

Senator Springer

Maria Baier, Policy Advisor

Office of the Governor

Peopk with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations such as interpreters, alternative formats, or assistance with

physical accessibility: If you require accommodations, please contact the Chief Clerk's Ofke at ( 602) 542- 3032.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

Thursday, June 1,1995

1 : 30 p. m.

House Hearing Room 2

Chairman Joe Hart called the meeting to order at 1: 35 p. m. and attendance was noted.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Representative Robert Burns

Senator A. V. " Bill" Hardt

Senator Patricia Noland

Senator Carol Springer

Representative Joe Hart, Chairman

Director Sam Lewis, Department of Corrections

Rudy Serino, Department of Administration

Maria Baier, Office of the Governor

MEMBERS EXCUSED

Representative David Armstead

Terry Stewart, Deputy Director, Department of Corrections ( DOC), thanked the

Committee for allowing DOC to make presentations regarding issues involved in the siting

of new prisons, the housing of minor inmates adjudicated as adults and the location and

composition of reception center( s). Mr. Stewart introduced Stan Bates, Sam Sublitt and

Hal Carden who would be discussing the aforementioned topics.

SlTlNG OF NEW PRISON COMPLEXES

Stan Bates, Administrator, Facility Activation Bureau, explained during the last

session, the Legislature passed H. B. 2002 which authorized $ 2 million to begin master

planning and studies for a new prison complex and that the money cannot be expended

until the Legislature sites the location. Mr. Bates added siting must occur by the full

legislature in either a special session or regular session in January 1996. Four locations

are under consideration including a site adjacent to the Eyman Complex near Florence,

another site adjacent to the south of the Arizona State Prison Complex ( ASPC) in Tucson,

and a third and fourth site, both located near Buckeye with one situated approximately 11

miles south of the town and one approximately 7.5 miles south and adjacent to State

Highway 80/ 85. Mr. Bates emphasized the recommendation of DOC is the site adjacent

to the east border of the Eyman Complex near Florence as inexpensive state land is

available, the local community favors prison expansion, the site is centrally located in the

state which holds down transportation and delivery costs.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE ON CORRECTIONS

June 1. 1995

Page 2

Mr. Bates explained the advantages to the Tucson ASPC is that it is a good location for

attracting and retaining staff, and asked that the Buckeye site not be considered at this

time. Mr. Bates also asked the Committee to consider the siting of a minors unit. Senator

Hardt agreed with Mr. Bates' assertions regarding prison siting and Maricopa County's role

in the prison system.

Senator Noland pointed out Tucson has been more than willing to house prisoners and

asked what the number of prison beds in Pima County and Maricopa County are in order

to put it into perspective for the Committee members. Mr. Bates estimated the number of

beds in Tucson at 3,000, 144 at Southern Arizona Corrections Release Center ( SACRC),

and 450 at Marana. Mr. Bates estimated the number of beds in Maricopa County is 2,200

at Florence, 1,000 in Phoenix and 400 private beds.

Senator Hardt noted there are a lot of places in Arizona where people do not want prisons

and that in Florence, citizens depend on the prison for economic reasons and want the

extra beds positioned in their area.

Senator Noland stressed the ability of the counties to take on its own prisoners and asked

of the current state prison population of 20,800 what the percentage of prisoners are in

Maricopa County. Mr. Bates estimated the percentage at 51.4% are citizens of Maricopa

County and that there are approximately 3,594 prison beds in Pima County and 3,600 beds

in Maricopa County, a split of approximately 50150.

Bill Galletly, Town Manager, City of Florence, stated it was the town's belief that prisons

are good industry and went on to tell the Committee about $ 395,000 in interest free loans

which had been made for new affordable housing. Mr. Galletly said he believed Florence

had set out to address its affordable housing problems by working with developers to build

single family homes and multi- housing complexes. Senator Noland asked for specific

information on available medical facilities and affordable housing. Mr. Galletly explained

plans had been made for 50 to 150 rental units and that it was due to be presented to the

zoning commission and a 60 acre parcel had been examined for a possible mobile home

park. Mr. Galletly added tentative plans had been made for a major medical clinic and in

response to Senator Noland's query, added there were currently two doctors residing in

Florence and six others that visit from Casa Grande.

Senator Springer asked what had changed in Florence regarding the siting of additional

prison beds. Mr. Galletly responded the council was looking for a professional approach

to running the town and now that Florence has the budget available, it has been able to

address issues and respond to goals and objectives. Mr. Galletly told the Committee

Florence has a capital improvement budget of $ 1.7 million in a town of 4,200 people.

Senator Springer expressed concern regarding Florence possibly requesting more money

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMlTTEE ON CORRECTIONS

June 1, 1995

Page 3

for capital improvement projects. Mr. Galletly noted it might be in the state's best interest

to invest in joint ventures with the town of Florence and that the state had already assisted

in the town's growth through the Department of Commerce and the offering of interest free

loans. Senator Springer stressed concern regarding state subsidized housing and asked

what affordable housing costs are in Florence. Mr. Galletly explained rentals go for

approximately $ 350 to $ 500 per month, with new housing currently being planned in the

$ 45,000 to $ 65,000 range. Senator Springer asked for information on the school system.

Mr. Galletly answered the schools were prepared to handle some surge in enrollment if it

was spread over a time period of about three years.

Representative Burns noted Florence was able to claim a state shared revenue base of

11,000 people due to the prison population without being required to supply services to a

large percentage of its counted population.

Senator Noland asked how competitive salaries would be with the private sector if the

prison addition was built in Florence. Mr. Lewis explained a scientific comparison had not

been done but that he knew salary and benefits are comparable with the private sector.

senator Austin Turner, District 15, told the Committee he had attended two hearings

in March in Buckeye and that he had 700 petitions to deliver to the Committee that were

fairly divided between pro and con for building a prison in Buckeye. Senator Turner added

Mr. Lewis had made presentations at the hearings that were both good and fair.

Joe Schettino, Mayor of the Town of Buckeye, explained he had been surprised to learn

Buckeye was being considered as a site for a new prison and noted support for the

possible prison was fairly evenly divided among those who attended hearings on the

proposal. Mr. Schettino suggested the state- owned land parcel be the one considered and

for permission for the Town of Buckeye to annex the facility. Mr. Schettino added he was

not able to answer questions regarding housing and hospitals as many of those types of

services were found in the surrounding area. Representative Hart thanked Mr. Schettino

for his comments, noting it was not the Committee's intent to force the issue on any one

area since there were areas actively seeking the- prison.

Senator Springer stated she had seen some of the petitions and that most of them were

done when the site closer to Buckeye was being considered. Senator Springer asked what

the public reaction had been when the farther site was considered. Mr. Schettino

answered there had been no public hearing on that issue and that many who signed the

petition were from Rainbow Valley and Estrella and noted ironically that housing

developments were currently going up within a half mile of Perryville.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE ON CORRECTIONS Page 4

June 1, 1995

Delbert Self, Town Manager, Buckeye, commented he was not aware of much public

opposition and that he was not sure if staffing such a venture would be a problem in light

of the close proximity to metro Phoenix. Representative Hart asked Mr. Self to come back

to the Committee with more public input on the possibility of such a site.

Senator Springer noted she was in favor of this site as it was a good location and that she

did not believe it was fair to expect 100% community support before making a

recommendation to the full Legislature. Representative Hart said he would like

representatives from the Town of Buckeye to return to a later Committee meeting with

additional information and input on behalf of the town.

Senator Bob Chastain, District 7, spoke in support of the Town of Florence, noting that

many people in Kearney work for the prison and noted the advantages to building a prison

in those cities or towns that want them.

Representative Tom Smith, District 26, noted objections he had heard to further building

in Florence was the lack of employment for spouses of those working for the corrections

facility in addition to the lack of social and recreational activities. Representative Smith

commented he felt the Buckeye site was adequate.

Senator Noland said she still favored a southwest correctional facility that would be located

near Buckeye with a capacity of 3,200 beds. Senator Noland discussed Yuma's wish for

prisons in their community in order to take advantage of the availability of cheap labor for

farming. Senator Noland spoke of the advantages to building the additional prison beds

at Florence; i. e., services were already available and it is centrally located between Tucson

and the Phoenix area.

Senator Springer noted she also favored the Buckeye site and would " hold off' on a

commitment with Florence because of a lack of affordable housing, schools and other

amenities.

Senator Noland asked if a vote was planned for today's meeting to give direction to DOC.

Representative Hart said he hadn't intended to ask for a motion today, but if it was the

desire of the Committee, he was willing to entertain a motion.

Mr. Lewis requested that the Committee give some sort of direction as it was impossible

for DOC to direct its energies when it was not sure what site to concentrate on. Mr. Lewis

said he would prefer to see development of the Florence site, and that direction for DOC

was necessary in order to make a good, rational decision. Senator Springer suggested the

Committee wait 30 days in order to acquire further information from Buckeye on the

possibility of development of that site. Representative Hart agreed.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

June 1, 1995

Page 5

Representative Burns pointed out the Joint Select Committee on Corrections does not

select the site; rather it recommends one for the full Legislature to vote on. Senator

Springer spoke in favor of a more objective analysis of the various sites from DOC for a

future meeting.

Senator Noland agreed direction was needed for DOC and that the Committee was fully

aware of Mr. Lewis' feelings on the Buckeye site.

HOUSING OF MINOR INMATES ADJUDICATED AS ADULTS

Sam Sublett, Warden, ASPC, Tucson, told the Committee housing for juvenile inmates

adjudicated as adults needs to be selected and the current question is whether the 200

juvenile beds planned at Tucson should be converted to Level 4 Adult Male beds if Tucson

is not selected as a permanent site to house juveniles. Mr. Sublett listed the options as 1)

construct a separate but co- located male and female juvenile prison to house all committed

juvenile inmates either in or near Maricopa County, 2) construct a separate but co- located

male and female juvenile prison to house all committed juvenile inmates in Tucson, or 3)

construct separate but co- located male and female prisons in two locations, one in

Maricopa County and the other in Tucson. Mr. Sublett explained the DOC recommends

the juvenile prison be sited either in or near Maricopa County. Senator Noland asked why

it was not recommended to have sites both in Pima County and Maricopa County. Mr.

Sublett explained a split could be made with costs estimated at $ 14 million but that it was

not among the DOC'S recommendations.

Mr. Lewis discussed the necessity of providing 200 beds and the idea of converting those

200 minor beds to adult beds and the construction costs associated with a permanent unit

as opposed to a temporary minor's unit. Mr. Lewis informed the Committee 80% - 85% of

the minors adjudicated as adults are from Maricopa County. Senator Noland and Mr.

Lewis further discussed the Rincon unit and the building of additional permanent structures

that could be converted to adult beds in addition to the danger to minors in the Rincon unit

and the need for a separate housing facility. Mr. Lewis said there were currently 93 minor

men incarcerated as adults and 3 minor women and that in addition to the 200 beds

planned for males, 50 beds were intended for females. Senator Noland suggested a 20-

bed unit for females, leaving 230 beds for males.

Senator Noland moved that DOC go ahead with plans for a 200 bed separate

facility in Tucson for minor males only with the possibility of conversion to

future adult beds and that a 250 bed facility for minors be located in Maricopa

County as a separate facility. Senator Noland added that of the 250 bed

facility in Maricopa County, the option of creating a 20 bed minor women's

facility be considered.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS Page 6

June 1, 1995

Mr. Lewis asked if the Committee had considered allowing minor women at the Tucson

facility. Senator Noland said she did not believe that idea to be feasible.

Senator Springer elaborated on the possibility of a new minor's prison in Maricopa County

and asked that expansion opportunities be considered for future growth if necessary in

addition to considering a maximum security juvenile facility.

Mr. Lewis asked for clarification on Senator Noland's motion regarding the future possible

conversion of minor beds to adult beds in the Tucson facility. Senator Noland clarified that

was her intent and that the conversion would not include building any support buildings.

The motion was SECONDED and CARRIED by voice vote.

LOCATION AND COMPOSITION OF RECEPTION CENTER

Hal Carden, Warden, ASPC, Tucson, discussed the possible construction of two

Reception and Diagnostic Centers with a total 500 bed capacity ( 400 beds in Maricopa

County and 100 beds in Pima County) or constructing just one Reception and Diagnostic

Center for both male and female inmates to be centrally located in Florence. Senator

Springer stated she was not in support of the one site option in Florence and asked for

further research on the option.

Mr. Lewis spoke in support of the one site option, noting the cost savings and efficiencies

in processing inmates. Senator Springer asked what the possibility of rehabilitation on the

current intake center was. Mr. Lewis explained that option had been eliminated in light of

the age and condition of the buildings currently being used. Mr. Lewis repeated his

contention that the building of one reception center would save money and staff.

Senator Noland said she favored the Florence site.

Representative Burns moved the recommendation of a single reception

location for processing inmates of both sexes. The motion was SECONDED

and CARRIED by voice vote.

Senator Noland moved that DOC supply an analysis of both Florence and the

current reception site, listing the advantages and disadvantages of both to be

presented to the Committee without bias. The motion was SECONDED and

CARRIED by voice vote.

Representative Hart thanked the Committee members and all those present for attending.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMllTEE ON CORRECTIONS

June 1. 1995

Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 3: 45 p. m.

Respectfully submitted,

Arlene Seagraves, Committee Secretary

Page 7

( Tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the senate)

DATE :

TIME:

PLACE :

SUBJECT:

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

I N T E R I M M E E T I N G N O T I C E

Open to the Public

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

Wednesday, August 2, 1995

1: 30 p. m.

House Hearing Room 2

Agenda :

1. Siting of new prison complexes

2. Update from Department of Corrections on

construction of Reception and Diagnostic

Center

Members :

Representative Hart, Chairman

Representative Armstead

~ epresentative R. Burns

Director Sam Lewis

Department of Corrections

Rudy Serino

Department of Administration

Senator Hardt

Senator Noland

Senator Springer

Maria Baier, Policy ~ dvisor

Office of the Governor

Peopk with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations such as interpreters, alternative formats, or assistance with

physical accessibii. If you require accommodations, please contact the Chief Clerk's Ofke at ( 602) 542- 3032.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS

Wednesday, August 2,1995

1 : 30 p. m.

House Hearing Room 2

Chairman Joe Hart called the meeting to order at 1: 35 p. m. and attendance was noted.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Representative David Armstead

Representative Robert Burns

Senator A. V. " Bill" Hardt

Senator Patricia Noland

Senator Carol Springer

Representative Joe Hart, Chairman

Director Sam Lewis, Department of Corrections

Rudy Serino, Department of Administration

John Coyle, Office of the Governor

Representative Hart thanked all those attending today's meeting, and asked Mr. Terry

Stewart of the Department of Corrections ( DOC) to introduce the first speaker to the

members.

Terry Stewart, Deputy Director, DOC, reminded the Committee of the task charged fo

DOC at the meeting on June 1, 1995 in which unbiased reports on the suitability of the

Florence and Buckeye sites would be assessed in addition to a study of the possible sites

for a new reception and diagnostic center would be presented at the next meeting.

Daryl R. Fischer, Research Manager, Planning Bureau, DOC, explained he had been

assigned to objectively analyze two proposed prison sites, one at Florence and one at

Buckeye and presented a report to the Committee entitled " Prison Siting Analysis: A

Comparison of Proposed Sites Near Florence and Buckeye, Arizona" ( filed with original

minutes). Dr. Fischer explained a " large radius analysis" and a " small radius analysis" had

been done and added a " large radius analysis" examines the potential for staff recruiting

in terms of the size of the existing labor force within a 60- mile radius of either site while a

" small radius analysis" examines the resources available to support a new prison such as

police, fire, and medical facilities. Dr. Fischer referred the Committee members to a chart

in the handout entitled " Prison Siting Analysis - Cities of 5,000 Population or More Within

Small Radius ( 30 miles) or Large Radius ( 60 miles)" which supports his conclusion that the

current labor force analysis favors the Florence site, noting it was his belief the Buckeye

site is too far removed from Tucson to draw quality staff. Dr. Fischer added, however, the

only small radius factor favoring the Buckeye site was the new construction starts for staff

housing. Dr. Fischer concluded that five of the six resource factors examined by DOC

MEETING ON THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF CORRECTIONS

August 2, 1995

favored the proposed Florence site over the proposed Buckeye site. Those factors include

spousal employment opportunities, suitable labor force, and resources.

Senator Noland asked why driving time was not considered in the analysis rather than

mileage. Dr. Fischer answered driving time differed by time of day, and it was not believed

to be pertinent to the analysis. Senator Noland spoke in favor of looking at the realities of

driving time and its impact on drawing employees to the Buckeye site. Senator Noland

questioned whether the DOC had studied the possibility of a depletion of the current prison

employment market. Dr. Fischer explained that information would be difficult to obtain.

Senator Noland suggested further study in which factors identifying current prison

employees and where they come from in addition to how far they are willing to drive to

work be considered. Senator Noland asked why Paradise Valley was not included in the

70- mile radius Dr. Fischer referred to. Dr. Fischer answered his calculations of mileage did

not include Paradise Valley. Senator Noland stressed it was her belief Paradise Valley is

even closer than Scottsdale if one were to drive to the Buckeye site and questioned the

methods used to arrive at the various mileages. Dr. Fischer explained the differences

between absolute or map distance and actual driving distance and the use of absolute

distance in the study.

Representative Bums asked if the potential growth of the areas surrounding the possible

prison sites and new freeway miles were considered. Dr. Fischer explained the report was

prepared in a time period of three weeks and was not comprehensive.

Representative Armstead asked if the mobility of society and Phoenix and its surrounding

areas in general and commuting styles had been considered. Dr. Fischer said he believed

information was readily available from the Department of Economic Security ( DES).

Representative Armstead requested that the information be made available to the

Committee.

Senator Springer commended Director Sam Lewis for presenting his preferences again to

the Committee in the report presented by Dr. Fischer and commented on the non- existing

housing market in Florence and the difficulty there is in comparing it to Buckeye. Dr.

Fischer explained existing housing and not new housing had been considered in the study.

Senator Springer remarked it was her belief prison employees were more likely to be able

to afford housing in communities like Maryvale rather than Scottsdale, which would put

them in greater proximity to the Buckeye site.

Senator Noland and Dr. Fischer discussed again the 60- mile radius concept and the

population included within that radius. Director Lewis told the Committee the DOC would

be happy to look at any factors the Committee had questioned in an expedient manner and

suggested he discuss with each of the Committee members their concerns and

observations on the two sites.

Representative Jerry Overton, District 15, said he was amazed how agencies make up

their minds on what they want to do and manage to put out information supporting their

decision. Reoresentatiie Overtnn e~ nlaindh e wanted the Cnmmiitam tn knnw CiIa Rend

MEETING ON THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF CORRECTIONS F'* irlru, ~ J

August 2, 1995

favors the prison site at Buckeye as it would be a help to their area economically.

Representative Overton asked the Committee to decide on a prison site based on the

benefits it can bring to the State in general.

Art Arnold, Rancher representing himself, presented petitions to the Committee of

citizens against the prison site in Buckeye.

Delbert Self, Town Manager, Town of Buckeye, read a summary to the Committee ( filed

with original minutes) in which he addressed issues of concern to the Committee members

which were requested at the last meeting. Mr. Self spoke highly of the employment

opportunities for spouses and the new home growth in that area of the State. Mr. Self

also presented a resolution to the Committee and requested special legislation approving

annexation of the prison into Buckeye city limits. Senator Noland asked for further

information on new housing developments and noted the driving time between the

reception site in Phoenix and the proposed site in Florence was 45 minutes with one stop

light.

John Geib, Acting Town Manager, Town of Florence, presented a summary compilation

of comments and observations regarding the proposed site selection for the location of a

new corrections facility ( filed with original minutes). Mr. Geib spoke in favor of choosing

the Florence site and spoke of the town's support for the additional prison beds and its

central location between Tucson and Phoenix.

Larry Fink, Broker for Southwest Realty, noted the site in Buckeye would utilize 1,460

acres of state land and require the purchase of additional privately owned acres in order

to complete a 3,500 bed facility. Mr. Fink told the Committee five irrigation wells already

exist in the area on the privately owned land which would be sufficient to serve the needs

of the prison. Mr. Fink also spoke of the large demands for new housing in that area of the

State. Senator Hardt asked what the cost for acquiring the land adjoining the state- owned

land for the prison site. Mr. Fink said 920 acres would need to be acquired at a cost of

$ 1,500 per acre which would include the wells. Mr. Fink further noted the land was not part

of the Phoenix Active Management Area for water use.

Kent Bosworth, Assistant Director, Department of Administration ( DOA), presented

comparisons of the proposed Florence and Buckeye sites ( filed with original minutes)

which were distributed to the Committee members. The handouts listed the location of the

sites, location of the closest community and its population, utility availability, and the soil

conditions of the land.

Senator Springer said she believed the Committee had received sufficient information to

make a recommendation to the Legislature for a new prison site.

Senator Springer moved that the Joint Select Committee on Corrections

recommend to the full Legislature the siting of a 3,500 bed facility at the

proposed site located south of Buckeye. Representative Burns SECONDED

the motion.

MEETING ON THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF CORRECTIOKS

August 2, 1995

Director Lewis suggested the Committee hear the second agenda item which gives an

update from the DOC on the construction of a new Reception and Diagnostic Center since

it is relevant to the siting of beds. Director Lewis said he believed more information was

needed and that he would like a chance to examine the data presented by the towns of

Florence and Buckeye before a decision is made. Director Lewis said he was not

convinced that Buckeye is right for the siting and that various factors including

management of the facility, recruiting and keeping of prison staff and health care

maintenance were of great relevance to the selection of a site and to the site of a future

reception area. Director Lewis added he did not believe this Committee needed to rush

a decision as the Legislature would not be meeting until January.

Senator Springer emphasized that much information had been received and considered

by the Committee members and that Director Lewis had never made any attempt to hide

his bias for the Florence site, noting the omission of Gila Bend in the presentations made

to the Committee by what was to be an objective study.

Representative Hart asked Senator Springer to withdraw her motion until the presentation

on the reception site was made by DOC.

. Senator Springer WITHDREW her motion. Representative Burns WITHDREW

his second.

J. C. Keeney, Assistant Director, DOC, presented a report to the Committee entitled

" Reception and Diagnostic Center Analysis and Siting Recommendation" ( filed with original

minutes) and listed the three options presented in the report which are to a) construct a

new 500- bed Level 5 reception center on the grounds of the State Hospital at 24th Street

and Van Buren, b) modify the existing Alhambra reception center, or c) construct a new

500- bed reception center at the complex at Florence. Mr. Keeney explained the third

option was the one favored by DOC . Representative Armstead asked how many people

were processed through the reception center. Mr. Keeney told the Committee that over

9,000 were processed during the last fiscal year and that over 10,000 were expected to be

processed this year. Representative Armstead asked how many jobs would be affected

by the move to Florence if that option were selected. Mr. Keeney said it was anticipated

those people employed by the current center would move to Florence although that had

not been asked of current employees. Representative Armstead asked that further study

of the motor pools be done and pointed out people were processed each day and driven

to the sites throughout the state at this time so cost savings as pointed to in the summary

would not be negligible.

Senator Springer noted the Committee was considering a proposal for an entity on a site

that the Legislature has not approved and suggested that DOC come back to the

Legislature with a request for a reception site. Director Lewis pointed out DOC had been

requested by the Legislature to bring information for consideration on a new reception site

and stressed his belief that its possible construction needed to be taken into account while

the site for a new prison was studied.

.

MEETING ON THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF CORRECTIONS

August 2, 1995

Senator Noland asked approximately how much space would be necessary for a site of the

size requested by DOC. Mr. Bosworth compared it to an existing site that is 27 acres.

Senator Noland suggested 27- acre parcels of state- owned land should be considered for

a site, pointing out the need for a centrally located site. Senator Noland added remodeling

of the current Arizona State Hospital ( ASH) was not feasible and that the choosing of the

new prison site should have some correlation to the new reception center.

Senator Springer agreed the reception site should be incorporated into the new prison site

and spoke in favor of strongly considering the current ASH site for new buildings as it was

impossible to sell that land and that it would need to be used for something by the State.

Mr. Bosworth informed the Committee a feasibility study would be presented to the

Committee in December. Mr. Bosworth was requested to include in the feasibility study

information on possible siting of a reception center at the Buckeye facility.

Senator Noland moved that the Committee meet after the report from DOA is

complete in order to consider all factors involved in designing and building

a reception center and to make a recommendation to the full Legislature.

Representative Burns SECONDED the motion.

Motion CARRIED by voice vote.

Senator Springer moved that the Joint Select Committee on Corrections

recommend the siting of a new 3,500 bed prison complex at a site south of

Buckeye.

Representative Burns AMENDED the motion to include the possibility of

annexation of the prison to the Town of Buckeye and SECONDED the motion

without objection.

Senator Hardt opposed the motion, noting that Florence has a great reputation as a proven

site for a prison. Senator Hardt said he was uncomfortable with the Buckeye site and the

opposition by some town members and mentioned the fact that the town did not have a

second meeting as requested by the Committee for further input on the location. Senator

Hardt added he believed Florence is a better place for the prison and that he trusted

Director Lewis' judgement and his willingness to discuss concerns the Committee may

have regarding the Florence site.

Representative Hart said he believed the Committee had heard much information and was

capable of making a good recommendation.

Senator Springer stated she preferred the Buckeye site because of her concerns regarding

affordable housing. Senator Springer said she realized the Town of Florence had been

working on attracting new housing starts but that affordable housing is a major factor to

employees.

Senator Noland stated she also believed Florence had begun to address concerns relating

MEETING ON THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF CORRECTIONS PAGE 6

August 2, 1995

to affordable housing and that she had discussed the prison and other issues with people

of the Town of Florence and believed that Florence is saturated with prison beds at this

time. Senator Noland spoke of the potential of the Buckeye site in attracting employees

and medical personnel necessary to serve the prison.

Representative Hart said he agreed the Committee had received plenty of information to

make a good decision and that he agreed with Senator Noland's comments on the Town

of Florence having reached the saturation point with prison beds.

By a roll call vote of 4 ayes and 2 nays, the motion CARRIED.

Director Lewis thanked the Committee for a good discussion on the issue and added DOC

would do a good job with the new prison wherever it was sited.

Thefleeting was adjourned at 4: 00 p. m.

Arlene seagraves. Commif le e Secretary

APPENDIX C:

Supplemental Agency Materials

FIFE SYMINGTON

GOVERNOR

RUDY SERINO

3iRECTCR

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL SERVICES DIVISION 15 SOUTH 15 AVENUE, ROOM 201

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007

( 602) 542- 0697

The Honorable Joe Hart

House of Representatives

1700 West Washington

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: Potential Prison Complex Site - Florence

Dear Representative Hart:

At your request, I have investigated the following State land parcels as

Potential Prison Complex Sites and offer the following observations:

I

f

1. The site is located approximately 70 miles southeast of the State

Capitol off of Interstate 10. The parcel of land is east of the Eyman

Complex - Special Management Unit II ( SMUII) which is currently being

constructed. The southern boundary runs along Butte Avenue.

2. The site under consideration is approximately 1120 acres of land

located at:

Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Section 34 - 480 acres

Township 4 South, Range 10 East, Section 35 - 640 acres

3. Utility Availability:

A. Electricity - A 115