HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-12 Council Packet - Work SessionK ena i C i t y Counc i I
Work Session
September 12, 2001
Preliminary
City
Assessment
To
Departments
Private
of Potential Impacts
of a
Prison
Proposed
KENAI CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
SEPTEMBER 12~ 2001
7:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
o
.
.
o
PACKET INFORMATION
Preliminary Assessment of Potential Impacts to City Departments of
Proposed Private Prison.
City of Kenai Resolution No. 2000-70 (Tabled 12 / 6 / 2000).
12 / 6 / 2000 Kenai City Council minutes regarding Resolution No. 2000-
70.
9 / 5/2001 Unapproved Minutes of Item B- 1, Comments of Don Gilman of
the Concerned Citizens for Responsible Economic Development.
TESTIMONY SIGN-IN SHEET
CITY OF KENAI
210 FIDALGO AVE., SUITE 200 KENAI, ALASKA 99611-7794
TELEPHONE 907-283-7535
FAX g07-283-3014. ~
Preliminary Assessment of
Potential
Impacts to City Departments of
Proposed
Private Prison
Prepared for Kenai City Council
By City Manager Linda L. Snow
Dated'
September 11, 2001
PURPOSE
This report is prepared at the direction of the Kenai City Council in order to provide a
preliminary assessment of potential impacts to city departments in the event a
private, medium security, 1,000-bed prison or correctional facility is constructed and
operated just outside the Kenai city limits boundary near the existing Wildwood
Correctional Facility. It is important to note that the City of Kenai administration has
not been provided with any project impact data or factual information pertaining to
project feasibility or the social, economic, and financial components of overall prison
project impacts on the Kenai community. Therefore, no recommendations can be
provided to the city council regarding impact preparedness or mitigation measures.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Legislature of the State of Alaska, in HB 149, authorized the Department of
Corrections to enter into an agreement to lease facilities for the confinement and
care of prisoners within the Kenai Peninsula Borough (see Exhibit A).
The Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB), in Ordinance 2000-075 adopted August 15,
2000, supported the concept of establishing a private prison within the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. The KPB, in Ordinance 2000-59 adopted December 12, 2000,
authorized the Borough to negotiate an agreement with the State to operate a pdson
facility, and to publicly solicit bids or proposals for the land, design, construction, and
operation of an 800 to 1,000-bed prison facility, to be financed with municipal
revenue bonds. The KPB subsequently issued a Request for'Qualifications and
selected Cornell Companies, Inc. through a competitive process. The KPB, in
Resolution 2001-016, authorized the negotiation of a contract with Cornell
Companies, inc. to assist the Borough administration with planning, promotion, and
potentially the design, construction, and operation of an 800 to a 1,000-bed medium
security correctional facility. The KPB subsequently entered into a profossional
services agreement with Cornell Companies, Inc. to provide such services. The
KPB, in Resolution 2001-026 adopted April 17, 2001, designated property near the
Wildwood Correctional complex for the prison site, subject to certain conditions, and
authorized the Borough administration to negotiate with the Kenai Natives
Association, Inc. for either the purchase or long-term lease with an option to
purchase the subject property.
The KPB, in Ordinance 2001-23 adopted August 7, 2001, authorized placing a
binding proposition on the October 2, 2001 ballot that, if approved, would authorize
the KPB to participate in the proposed construction of a private, for-profit operation
of a .prison in the Borough. The ballot language will read as follows:
May the Kenai Peninsula Borough contract with the
State of Alaska and one or more private for-profit
firms for the operation of a prison or a correctional
institution containing a maximum of 1,000 beds in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough?
YES NO
AcCording to Borough officials, if the majority of Borough voters answer "yes" to the
above question, the Borough will issue a Request for Proposals for the preparation
of a Correctional Facility Social, Economic and FinanCial Feasibility Study as soon
as possible.
Ordinance 2001-23, Section 2, further states "That if the proposition contained in
Section 1 is approved by a majority of the voters voting in the regular election of
October 2, 2001, then the Kenai Peninsula Borough may proceed with all necessary
steps, including reaching necessary agreements with the State of Alaska, to
construct a prison facility in the Kenai Peninsula Borough to be operated by a private
contractor. If the proposition contained in Section 1 is not approved by a majority of
the voters voting in the regular election of October 2, 2001, then the Kenai Peninsula
Borough may not proceed with the design and construction of a prison facility in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough to be operated by a private contractor for a minimum
period of two years from the date the election is certified." '
INTRODUCTION
The City of Kenai administration, in preparation for this report, met with"the'~BomUgh
administration in a four-hour work session to obtain as much information as Possible
at this stage of the process and in the absence of actual data regarding the social,
economic, and financial impacts of the prison proiect. The administratiOn also
reviewed the private prison' project written material forwarded' by the Borough and
kept on file by the Kenai City Clerk. · .... .. ~..:,~:.~.~,
_
· Initially,. the administration focused on two important questions upon which t~e dePth
and breadth of prison impacts would largely depend. The flint question wa~h~ther
the prison would be a minimum or a medium security facility. The second~.~'ueStion
was whether them would be halfway houses established in the commUri~ as 'a
result of the pdson project. Borough officials responded to the first question about
the facility security designation by mfordng to HB 149, the enabling I~i~lation,
which refers to the proposed pdson as a medium security.facility. In response to the
~'seCond' question regarding halfway houses, BoroUgh officials indicated 'tl'i~t While
halfWay houses am not planned as part of this project, the Alaska Department of
Corrections (^DOC) has indicated that the need for halfway houses exists now.
..
This is confirmed in a letter dated Mamh 22, 2001 from ADOC CommiSsioner
.~:.
Margarot Pugh to Senator John Torgerson in which Commissioner Pugh states,
"The need for a halfway house in the Kenai area already exists and the Department
looks forward to working with the Borough on this issue." The ADOC would first
have to approach the Borough to move forward with any project to establish halfway
houses in its rural districts. Likewise, the ADOC would first have to approach the
City of Kenai to establish a halfway house project within the Kenai City limits.
PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
Public Works Departments
Street Department, Street Lighting, Water and Sewer Departments, Sewer
Treatment Plant, and the Boatinfl Facility
At one time, it was understood that access to the proposed prison facility would be
provided from Borgen Avenue, which is paved. The center of Borgen Avenue is the
city limits boundary line. The KPB Road Service Area plows snow and maintains
Borden Avenue. The City maintains Wildwood Drive, which is the access road to the
existing Wildwood Prison facility.
Providing a water source, water distribution, sewer collection, and sewer treatment is
of utmost concern for the new prison under consideration north of the Kenai city
limits. On-site systems are a possibility but very unlikely because of Iow quality
water in that area which would require very expensive treatment.
Planning a new prison must incorporate a complete and accurate plan by the prison
consultants showing exactly how, where, and at what cost the prison developer will
have the ability to add users to the City of Kenai water and wastewater systems.
This could include a new well house and plans to increase the water flow and
pressure, new and/or expanded water and sewer mains with lift stations, an
expanded and modified wastewater treatment plant, grinder pumps, bar screens,
and water meters.
New well house and plans to increase the water flow and pressure
The City's closest well house is over seven miles from the proposed site of the new
prison. This would be at the very end of the water main line. The City presently has
a very serious water quantity problem during the dry summer months. A new well
house and water main line connecting it to the City water system is necessary. A
new water pressure station may also be desirable. A very rough estimate of cost
would be approximately $2.5M.
New and/or expanded water and sewer mains with lift stations
The City's existing sewer mains are running fairly full. The distance for a new sewer
main from the prison site to the wastewater treatment plant is approximately 4-1/2
miles with three lift stations and a rough cost of $2.5M. ^ new water main to our
storage tank is four miles at roughly $1.8M.
Expanded and modified wastewater treatment plant
The City's present plant is running at about 70% capacity. The City has applied for
an ADEC grant of $6M to enlarge and modify the wastewater treatment plant. This
includes a new digester, aeration basin, clarifier, sludge press, blowers, and building
enlargement. A new prison would put us close to capacity, if not over capacity.
Future development within the City may have to be curtailed if the existing plant is
not expanded and modified.
Grinder pumps, bar screens, and water meters
Wastewater from the existing Wildwood Prison has been a problem to the City's
existing system. Shirts, towels, socks, and plastic bags from Wildwood Prison have
plugged the lift station. Grinder pumps and bar screens need to be installed before
the wastewater enters the City collection system. Accurate and easily serviceable
water meters need to be installed. These items should be located on-site and
maintained as part of the new prison project.
Rough Cost Estimates in Millions
New well house and plans to increase the water flow and pressure
New and/or enlarged water and sewer mains with lift stations
Enlarged and modified wastewater treatment plant
Grinder pumps, bar screens, and water meters (facility construction)
$ 2.5
4.3
6.0
0.0
Total Cost
$12.8
These cost estimates are undoubtedly on the high side, and running all new water
and sewer mains may not be necessary. Building this new prison outside the city
limits today, however, should not affect tomorrow's development inside tho city limits
by using all of the City's utility capacities.
The City has asked CH2M Hill to' prepare a Wastewater Facility Master Plan. While
the plan will not likely be completed until next year, the City has requested that it
in.clude a projected system demand such as would be experienced by the proposed
pnson facility.
Wildwood Prison used 1,910,000 gallons of water in April 2001. This is 63,667
gallons per day (gpd). If the proposed prison population and staff wero throe times
the size of Wildwood, the estimated use, assuming no other variables, would be
191,000 gallons per day or 5,730,000 gallons per month. An estimate of utility
revenue from the proposed prison facility would be'
Water 5,730 x $1.00 = $ 5,730.00
Sewer 5,730 x $2.25 = 12,892.50
Total Revenue per month
$18,622.50
While capital costs for such improvements are high at the front-end, maintenance
costs would be lower once constructed. The City would not maintain system lines
outside the city limits.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough consultant for prison project planning, Cornell
Companies, Inc., has reported through Livingston Sloane, Inc. (LSI), its architectural,
engineering, and project management contractor, that initial planning efforts for
water and wastewater have resulted in much lower system demand estimates. They
estimate the proposed facility will use about .056 Mgpd of water and .056 Mgpd in
wastewater or 56,000 gpd each, including fire suppression activities. While the
proposed prison is a much larger and more populated facility, these water use
projections are considerably smaller than the actual amounts used by the smaller
Wildwood facility. Their assessment also includes research with ADEC regarding
the possibility of back-flow contamination in the Wildwood facility water holding tank.
In addition, their written material indicates knowledge of the ongoing problems with
material finding its way into the City system and the need to incorporate an
additional grinder pump into a new facility's wastewater system. LSI has also
reported a willingness to provide lobbying assistance to the City in the coming
legislative session to increase the possibility of funding $1.4M for the addition of a
fourth water well to the City system.
LSl, assuming the adequacy of the existing Wildwood infrastructure, is currently
proposing that the new prison facility would tap into the existing Wildwood water line
on the north side of the Wildwood complex and extend a line north to the new facility
site on either the west or east side of Chuda House. To insure an adequate quantity
of water is available in the Wildwood system, an additional tap into the City's main at
Wildwood Drive and California Street would be necessary. They believe this would
increase the quantity of available water to the system by as much as fifty percent.
LSI is proposing the sewer connection for the new prison would extend south from
the proposed site on the west side of Chuda House and tie into the existing sewer
infrastructure on the Wildwood complex--again, assuming the adequacy of the
existing Wildwood infrastructure. Their understanding is that a new lift station will
likely be required for the new facility, and that they will need to establish metering for
new facility systems so that the cost of services for the new prison will be calculated
on actual water usage.
City administration has requested updated plans and cost projections from LSl for
both water and wastewater utility construction costs. In the event the voters say
"yes" on October 2, 2001, it will be important the City negotiate and reach an
acceptable compromise with Corneil Companies, Inc. for these utilities and obtain
ADEC approval for the proposed system developments.
Public Works Administration, Planning.and Zoning, Buiidin.q Official, Building
Maintenance and Shop
The proposed prison will impact the Public Works Administration, Planning and
Zoning, Building Official, Building Maintenance, and the City Shop to the extent of
community growth associated with the prison. City owned infrastructure
improvements in these areas are not expected as a direct result-of the project.
Any project of this magnitude will surely cause short-term (construction) and long-
term growth. Proposed studies of demographics and infrastructure needs should
give more accurate and factual growth projections that can only be guesses at this
point.
The most obvious impacts will be in the areas of building inspections and planning
administration. New construction will increase the plan review and inspections by
the Building Official and Fire Marshall for both residential and commercial structures.
We should also expect additional conditional uses, variances, site plan reviews,
subdivision reviews and installation agreements, and code enforcement.
The Public Works Administration will see additional coordination of capital projects
associated with growth and the initial expansion of the water and sewer systems.
Building Maintenance and the Shop will be impacted only as a function of the other
City departments receiving support.
Kenai Police Department
Police chiefs in the following communities were contacted and asked questions
pertaining to issues that have been raised in Kenai'
Florence, Arizona with a population of three thousand, and an inmate population of
ten thousand. Inmates are housed in four public and two pdvate facilities with
medium to maximum security for inmates from numerous states.
Coolidge, Adzona with a population of seven thousand .residents, and within close
proximity of Florence, Arizona.
Central Falls, Rhode Island a city of twenty-two thousand residents with an inmate
population of two hundred prisoners. The prison is a Federal maximum-security
facility with inmates from numerous states.
F01kston, Georgia with a population of tWenty-three hundred residents and an inmate
populated of fifteen hundred. The facility is medium security with inmates from
Georgia only.
H!nton, Oklahoma, a toWn with a population of thirteen hundred and an inmate count
of eight hundred and fifteen. Inmates are housed in a medium security facility and
am from Oklahoma.
Community Influx of families and friends o.f inmate.s.
None of the five communities reported this as an issue. Each one stated they knew
of only a handful of families moving to their jurisdiction. As a result, they did not
perceive any increased demand on social services or local schools.
Inmates staying in the community after release
This was not an issue with any of the communities, even those with inmates from
their own State. Some reported that a few inmates stayed in their area, but did not
create a problem for the police.
Escapes
Several chiefs reported escapes or attempted escapes. In each instance, the
inmates had been captured without injury to anyone in the community. The Rhode
Island facility went through a security assessment after an escape, and some
procedures were changed as a result.
Each of the jurisdictions contacted had agreements with the private prison and other
local law enforcement agencies for response to escapes and riots. Reimbursement
for resources to respond to these events varied from payment for overtime to no
compensation. The State of Oklahoma legislature passed a law identifying the
expenses local law enforcement could demand from private prisons.
Screening and training of private correctional officers
In those communities where the Chief knew about the training programs, they stated
the private prison correctional officers were trained as well as, or better than their
counterparts in the public facilities. No contacts were made with a Chief in a state
that requires the private correctional officers to be certified by the same state agency
that certifies state correctional officers.
Marvin Wiebe, Senior Vice President with Cornell Companies, Inc. stated their
correctional officers are screened for felony offenses. Misdemeanor offonses would
be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He also related their correctional officers am
not screened with a polygraph test. It should be noted that Alaska correctional
officers themselves are not being screened with polygraph testing.
Investigation of crimes committed by inmates and correctional staff
Although the Kenai Police Department would not have jurisdiction over crimes
committed in a facility outside of the City, those crimes would still impact an already
heavy caseload for the Kenai District Attorneys Office (DAO). The staff at the Kenai
DAO related they handle approximately six criminal cases a year from the Wildwood
Correctional Facility.
Response to the crimes in the private prison facilities in the five communities
contacted were varied; from investigations conducted by the local police department
to investigations conducted by the prison, which are referred to the police
department. In the community where the private prison conducted the investigation,
the local prosecutor would not accept these cases. The police chiefs contacted
did not perceive a large drain of resources to address inmate crime in their facilities.
Police departments that investigated crimes perpetrated by correctional staff did not
report an unusual number of offenses.
Transport of inmates
Wildwood Correctional facility currently transports inmates from and to other facilities
on charter flights three to four times a week. Transports are conducted'with inmates
in shackles. Some ground transportation occurs. State employees do all prisoner
transports. It is expected the State of Alaska will also conduct transports for a
private facility.
There are at present approximately one hundred and fifty-eight private prisons in the
United States and, given the time constraints imposed for this cursory report, only
five have 'been contacted for this compilation. General impressions received from
this limited inquiry were that these, five communities experienced minimal impact on
public safety.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance published a document entitled "Emerging Issues
on Private Prisons" printed in February of 2001. This is a fairly good summary of
private prison issues, from financial to security concems. The document also
includes a section on "Guidelines for Contracting for a Pdvate Prison." A ~mall
amount of time in preparation for this report was spent reviewing documents on the
Internet that addressed pdvate prison issues, including both supporting and
opposing points of view. The primary difficulty in utilizing information from the
Internet would be in verifying the accuracy and credibility of content.
If the October 2nd vote supports the private pdson, the City of Kenai should work
closely with all the parties involved to ensure public safoty issues am adequately
' addressed within contracts and agreements. This also pertains to any other relevant
issues. One specific area that might be explored: the Rhode Island facility has a
profit sharing agreement that produces revenues for the city of between four
hundrod thousand and five hundred thousand per year.
Leeal Department
Any impact on the Legal Department as a result of the development of the proposed
private prison will be as a result of any population growth in the community resulting
from development of the prison. Any general increase in the population will have a
concomitant effoct on the number of municipal prosecutions, debt collection,
planning and zoning issues, etc. Overall, any impact on this department will be
relatively minor and indirect. It is not expected that any increase in personnel in the
Legal Department will be needed as a result of the private pdson.
Although not an impact on the Legal Department itself, the proposed prison would
impact the caseload of the local District Attorney's Office. The increase is
associated with any prison as a result of prosecutions of inmate fights, assaults on
jail guards, and attempts to introduce contraband into the prison. Those
occurrences are associated with any prison, public or private. Such cases would
compete for scarce prosecutorial resources with City of Kenai cases. As a result,
some local cases that would otherwise be prosecuted may be prosecuted less
vigorously or not be prosecuted. However, it must be noted that the above effect is
a general statement and cannot be quantified.
Finance Department
The impacts to the Finance Department would come from increased population.
This could generate more water/sewer customers and perhaps more traffic in the
office for other transactions. It is not expected that new staff would be needed to
handle the increased workload.
Positive impacts to the City would include increased sales tax, property tax and
water/sewer revenue. At a recent City Council meeting, former Borough Mayor Don
Gilman mentioned $500M in 20 years for economic development impacts of the
Proposed prison. That is probably a reasonable number considering the state is
paying $20M per year to house prisoners in Arizona. However, not all of that would
stay on the Peninsula.
It is difficult to generate a credible estimate for the revenue increases. One question
is whether increased service costs would be covered by the revenue increases.
· Since the prison itself is outside of the City, it will not generate substantial additional
costs directly except for water and sewer. Based on initial impact statoments from
City of Kenai staff, it did not seem like major staff increases would be exPected,
which is where the City's major expense is. It is not entirely inconceivable that net
financial resources for the City would grow if the prison project happened.
One interesting side item is whether the private contractor would be exempt from
sales tax on their purchases. I do not believe they would be. However, they will buy
in large quantities, so the direct Sales tax impact will be small.
Fire Department .
-
Impacts on Fire Department Services as a result of the new proposed facility
· Increase in training for access to the facility (safety & security).
· Minor increase in mutual aid for EMS services (overtime, supplies and vehicle
use), we will bill for the service.,
· Minor increase in mutual and automatic aid response for alarms and rims
(overtime and vehicle use).
on the inter-library loans (that included searching for materials and retrieving them
from other libraries). That grant has not been available for several years now.
The Assistant State Librarian and the State Library report Alaskan libraries are not
required to provide any service to the prisoners. On the other hand, services would
be provided to their families if located in Kenai.
Parks and Recreation
Statistics show that more than one-third of new prison inmates are drug offenders. If
this is correct, Kenai could see an increase in the number of high-risk families
moving to the community. Intervention programs would be part of any prison facility,
however, community outreach programs and resources would be needed to deal
with families of the inmates, beyond the prison's facility-based programs.
Intervention programs may include, but not be limited to, depression, substance
abuse, aggression, etc. After-school programs could become more structured, and
there may be more opportunities to coordinate efforts with the Boys and Girls Club.
Larger demands could be placed on recreation services as preventative health
service. Fee structure, transportation and accessibility could become issues.
Attachment
LS/kh
Possible increased need for communicable disease control
decontamination supplies (gowns, disease-specific masks, gloves,
Prison population is considered high risk for VD, HIV, AIDS, TB, etc.
and
etc).
,Impacts on City Services Related to Fire Department
· Water system usage and consumption will increase. Nikiski Fire Department
may also use the hydrant system near the facility to fill tankers. This will
become very important in summer when water storage is Iow.
· Use of airport may increase need for FAR Part 139 services (fire & rescue
services requirements) and FAR Part 107 (security requirements).
Other Considerations
· Increased traffic on the Kenai Spur may equate to more accidents and traffic
violations, but will also result in more need for DOT to provide timely road
maintenance at State expense. This section of the Kenai Spur is notorious
for being last on the DOT list for maintenance and first on their list for budget
cuts.
· The need to train private corrections officers to State standards and other
staff in CPR, First Aid and fire extinguisher use should benefit the training
center.
Kenai Municipal Airport
Initial build up of prisoners would bring in a noticeable amount of traffic. The
prisoners would not be going through the terminal. A bus would meet the plane, and
load up directly from the plane. Prisoners are transported through the airport
terminal only occasionally, and those am single prisoners or sometimes two at a
time and only when they fly on a commercial flight.
The airport now receives about five flights a month for Wildwood. That number could
triple with the new prison, but it would not have much affo¢t to the airport.
Library
At the moment, Library services to Wildwood am not creating too many problems.
The Kenai Library uses the inter-library loan program to send materials to Wildwood
as if it were to any other library. The books are picked up and returned by a prison
employee. Last year, Kenai loaned 108 items to Wildwood out of 653 total inter-
library loan requests. It is possible that if inmates had access to the Intemet and
could search library catalogs on the web, that number could be higher. If Kenai were
to provide the same free service to a facility three times bigger, it is likely staffing
difficulties would be encountered.
Several years ago, the State Library gave Kenai a grant of $10,000 to hire a part-
time employee who would travel to Wildwood twice a week and spend time working
EXHIBIT "A"
22-LS0436\U.a
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 149(FIN) am S
IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
TWENTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE - FIRST SESSION
BY THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Amended: 511/01
Offered: 4/27101
Sponsor(s): REPRESENTATIVES CHENAULT. Scaizi
SENATOR Ward
l0
Il
12
13
14
A BILL
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED
"An Act expressing legislative intent regarding correctional facility, space; relating to
correctional facility, space: authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter into an
agreement to lease facilities for the confinement and care of prisoners within the Kenai
Peninsula Borough; and providing for an effective date."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA'
* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section
to read:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the legislature to secure additional
correctional facility space throu~ a privately operated correctional facility in Alaska. The
legislature expects the Department of Corrections to contract with the Kenai Peninsula
Borough for private prison services similar to those currently purchased for medium-security
Alaska prisoners in a private Prison outside the state. The legislature anticipates a privately
operated correctional £aciiity will bring competitive management styles and operations to
Alaska. The legislature expects that the initial per diem cost at a private facility (excluding
HB0149E
-1- SCS CSHB 149(FIN) am S
New Tex.. r'-derl'i.~ed {DELETED T~YT BRACKETEDI
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(c)
conditions:
22-LS0436\U.a
costs related to major medical, prescription medication, and transportation of prisoners and
other services excluded in contracts for Alaska prisoner care and custody in private facilities
outside the state but including the capital costs for construction of the thcility, including debt
service) will be 18 - 20 percent less than the current average per diem rate tbr all state
t'acilities as reported to the federal government for reimbursement purposes; should be
approximately 589 in current dollars.
* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
read:
AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE CORKECTIONAL FACILITY' SPACE WITH
THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTOR OPERATION. (a) The Department of Corrections may
enter into an a~eement With the Kenai Peninsula Borough to lease space within a correctional
t'acility located within the Kenai Peninsula Borough that will house persons who are
committed to the custody of the commissioner of corrections. The agreement must provide
that the state agrees to lease the~,pace for a minimum of 20 years. ' '
(b) The agreement to lease entered into under this section is predicated on and must
provide for an agreement between the Kenai Peninsula Borough and one or more private
third-party contractors under which private, for profit or nonprofit third-party contractors
construct and operate the facility by providing for custody, care, and discipline services for
persons held by the commissioner of corrections under authority of state law. The
commissioner of corrections shall require in the agreement with the Kenai Peninsula Borough
that the Kenai Peninsula Borough procure one or more private third-party operators through a
competitive procurement process. A municipality exercising its powers under
AS 29.35.010(I 5) for procurement of land. design, construction, and operation of a facility,
that follows its municipal °rdinances and resolutions and procurement procedures, satisfies
the procurement requirements of this subsection.
The authorization given by (a) of this section is subject to the following
(1) the lease must have a minimum of 800 prison beds, and the lease payments
must be sufficient to cover
(A) the cost for the development and construction of the facility; and
(B) the operating costs for a minimum of 800 prison bed~ in the
SCS CSHB 149(FIN) am S -2-
New Text 5:~.derlir. e~ [DELETED TEX"r BRACKETED]
HB0149E
l0
Il
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22-LSO436\U
facility tbr a period of five years, less a reasonable period to achieve full occupancy;
(2) the agreement to lease must contain terms providing that the commissioner
of corrections may direct the Kenai Peninsula Borough to terminate its contract with a private
third-party contractor operating the facility in accordance with the provisions of (b) of this
section if the commissioner finds that the private third-party contractor has failed to provide
or cause to be provided the degree of custody, care. and discipline required by terms of the
lease agreement:
(3) the commissioner may not enter into the lease if the commissioner finds
that the Kenai Peninsula Borough is unable to provide or cause to be provided a degree of
custody, care. and discipline similar to that required by the laws of the state;
(4) the commissioner may not enter into the lease unless the contract between
Kenai Peninsula Borough and the operator requires the operator to provide culturally relevant
counseling services to incarcerated Alaska Natives.
* See. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to
read:
APPLICABILITY. The provisions of AS 33.30.03 l(a) do not apply to an agreement
to lease a correctional facility in accordance with the provisions of sec. 2 of this Act. I1~
applicability section does not affect the authority of the commissioner of correction~ to
·
designate the correctional facility to which a prisoner is assigned. * See. 4. Section 4, ch. 15, SLA 1998, and sec. 6. ch. 35, SLA 1999, are repealed.
* See. 5. This Act takes effect June 1, 2001.
HB0149E
-3- SCS CSHB 149(FIN) am $
New Tex~ Underlined [DELETED T~IT BRACKETED]
Suggested by:
CITY OF KENAI
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-70
Councilman Ba ~~w~.~
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEN~, ALASKA, URGING THE
IZ~NAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ASSEMBLY'S PASSAGE OF THEIR ORDINANCE NO.
2000-59, AUTHORIZING THE BOROUGH TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
STATE TO OPERATE A PRISON FACILITY AND TO PUBLICLY SOLICIT BIDS OR
PROPOSALS FOR THE LAND, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF AN 800
TO 1,000-BED MEDIUM-SECURITY PRISON FACILITY TO BE FINANCED WITH
MUNICIPAL REVENUE BONDS.
WHEREAS, passage of Kenai PeninsUla Borough Ordinance No. 2000-59 will authorize
the Borough Mayor to solicit competitive bids or proposals for the lease or purchase of
land, design', construction and operation of a 800-1,000 bed medium-security prison
facility; and,
WHEREAS, construction of the medium-security prison facility would be financed by
the Borough through revenue bonds to be repaid out of the funds paid by the State to
the Borough for operating the facility; and,
WHEREAS, the operation of a medium-security prison facility in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough could provide up to 300 new permanent, full-time jobs and offer tremendous
economic benefits to Peninsula residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI,
ALASKA, that the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly is urged to pass their Ordinance
No. 2000-59 in order to proceed with the establishment of a private medium-security
prison within the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this sixth day of
December, 2000.
ATTEST:
John J. Williams, Mayor
Carol L. Freas, City clerk
clf
Approved by Finance:
KENAI CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 2000
PAGE 5
MOTION:
Councilman Frazer MOVED for approval of Resolution No. 2000-68 and Councilman
Bannock SECONDED the motion.
There were no public comments. Administrative Assistant Kebschull explained this
would hopefully be the last part of the GIS project for water/sewer as-builts. The as-
builts were digitized which created a layer of information on the program. The
information does not show service lines as that is the property owners' information.
She referred to her memorandum included in the packet which outlined the cost
savings that would occur using in-house temporary help. She also explained, during
this phase, updating of the information would occur and hotlinks would be added to
maps to either bring up an as-built or a list telling where to find the as-builto
VOTE:
There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
Resolution No. 2000-69 -- Awarding the Bid to Seekins Ford for an
Emergency Squad Fire Apparatus for the Total Amount of $148,142 and
Authorizing Use of the Equipment Replacement Fund for the Purchase.
MOTION:
Councilman Moore MOVED for approval of ReSolution No. 200-69 and Councilman
Bannock SECONDED the motion.
There were no public comments. Acting Fire Chief Walden explained the vehicle would
allow the ability for additional lighting, better access for beach and bluff rescues and
the city's insurance rating would be better because the vehicle would be used as a
back-up vehicle to a fire engine. He also noted that although the bid packages were
forwarded to several suppliers, only one bid was received.
VOTE:
There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
Resolution No. 2000-70 -- Urging the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Assembly's Passage of Their Ordinance No. 2000-59, Authorizing the
Borough to Negotiate an Agreement with the State to Operate a Prison
Facility and to Publicly Solicit Bids or Proposals for the Land, Design,
Construction, and Operation of an 800 to 1,000-Bed Medium-Security
Prison Facility to be Financed with Municipal Revenue Bonds.
MOTION:
Councilman Bannock MOVED for approval of Resolution No. 2000-70 and
Councilman Bookey SECONDED the motion.
Richard Sitbon -- 118 Haida, Kenai. While distributing information handouts, Sitbon
reported he is employed as a guard at the Wildwood Prison and is a local business
owner. Stated he had no concerns with privately-owned prison, but was concerned
with public safety, council's quick decision to support the building of a prison,
additional families of prisoners moving into the area in regard to quality housing, etc.
He suggested building a casino as an alternative.
Richard Dominick -- P.O. Box 1634, Kena/. Explained he also is employed as a
correctional officer at Wildwood and is a local business owner. Stated he opposed the
city's resolution as well as the Borough's ordinance. He believed it was time for an
additional prison, but not a privately-owned prison. He noted guards that would be
hired at a privately-owned prison would be transient workers and that the corporation
who would run the prison would be out to make a profit.
Steve Richard -- Correctional officer at Wildwood. Referred to information which had
been reported by the Kenai Natives Association and stated some of it was not accurate
and misleading, noting the types of prisoners that would be housed; prisoners could
be released into this community; prisoners would be allowed to go out into the
community to visit family; and inadequate training. He also distributed information.
George Avila -- Public Safety Employee Association representative. While distributing
information, Avila explained~ his opposition to the proposed development as safety
concerns for the community; guards who will be transient workers and whose
certification will not be recognized by the State; impact on the area school populations;
costs per prisoner; profits earned by the privately-owned prison will go out of state;
and a private prison will fill the beds by bringing in out-of-state prisoners {other than
Alaska prisoners).
BREAK TAKEN: 8:06 P.M.
BACK TO ORDER: 8:17 P.M.
Blaine Gilman -- 150 North Willow Street, Attorney representing Kenai Natives
Association, Inc. {KNA) explained that because the state's initial proposal to build a
prison at Greely would probably not go forward, KNA developed a concept to build a
privately-owned prison next to the Wildwood Correctional Facility. As the project
progressed, it was now envisioned that if the Borough issues revenue bonds, a private
prison facility could be built somewhere on the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The
Borough would then develop a Request for Proposals and KNA and their team could
participate in that effort.
Gilman added, a small window of opportunity was available for the Borough to take
the project from the Greely area and move it to the Peninsula. The Legislature
appropriated funding and passage of the Borough's ordinance would be the first step.
If the borough ordinance passes, the borough agrees to issue revenue bonds and the
RFP is awarded to KNA, it would mean 250-300 permanent jobs in the area and a
capital construction project of $80-90 mill_ion. He noted, because it would be a
significant project for the area, he thought council should support it. Gilman noted
representatives from KNA were in the audience, as well as a Comell Corrections
representative. He added, it was hoped that with passage of the Borough ordinance
the state funds could be appropriated to the Borough during the first part of the
upcoming legislative session. Gilman added, the state was not funding publicly-owned
prison facilities at this time. He also stated that if council did not support building a '
private facility in the area, they would be ignoring a large economic opportunity.
Williams noted he did not believe the Borough held police powers or correctional
facility/jail powers, and asked if they would have the authority to go forward with an
RFP, etc. Gilman answered he did not know and felt the borough attorney would have
researched that question. He noted, a special statute allowing a government- to-
government relationship in regard to prisons for municipalities was in place. He
added, he was aware the state was only interested in developing a prison with a
government-to-government agreement.
Williams stated he agreed placement of the facility would be an economic benefit, but
was concerned about other economic costs that would impact the city. Ross asked if
after the RFP is developed, would it be a public document which the council and
administration would have the opportunity to review and comment as well as the RFP
award when it could be seen what will be proposed by KNA. Gilman answered, it was
his understanding that any RFP and response would be public information. Ross
asked if Gilman was aware of.any discussions between the state and borough, etc.
that would make the facility anything more than medium security, i.e. would there be
minimum in the facility. If there would be minimum, what would be the community
infrastructure needed to support a minimum facility, i.e. half-way houses, work
release, furlough, etc. Gilman answered it was his understanding it was a medium.
However, he believed that would be up to the state. Ross noted, the RFP would
indicate the custody grade that would be held there. Gilman answered, he believed
that would be specified between the state and the borough in the intergovernmental
agreement. The RFP would be general in nature.
Frank Pruitt -- 8500 Upper Huffman Road, Anchorage. Explained he was under
contract with Comell Corrections to team with KNA to develop a proposal for a
privately, owned prison at Wildwood. Pruitt offered information in regard to the state's
decision to support private prisons instead of building more public facilities and noted
declining revenue challenged the Department of Corrections to develop other ways of
doing business, i.e. introduction of halflaray houses, substance abuse programs,
electronic monitoring, etc. He also noted, the people in key positions with the
Legislature will not support building or operating state-mn facility and would probably
rather send prisoners out of state instead.
Councilman Bannock explained he requested the resolution be brought forward and
noted he believed Kenai was in a better position since the development of the
:Wildwood Correctional Facility and believed this a great opportunity for the
community. He noted, comments from previous speakers regarding private versus
public facilities was not a good argument as the state had already made that decision.
He noted he opposed halflaray houses and believed more bricks and mortar were
needed. Bannock also noted the resolution supported the borough efforts to get the
funding transferred in order to build a facility in the borough.
resolution.
He urged passage of the
Williams stated he believed there should be a very full and complete public hearing in
regard to the prison industry in or near the city should be held in order for the
community to have an opportunity to speak to the issue. Several people he spoke to
regarding the issue prior to the meeting, were all opposed. Some questions he felt
needed to be asked were: Who would pay for the additional services that will be
required of the city if a prison be built near the community (Wildwood), i.e. utilities,
water/sewer, etc.? A 800-1,000 bed facility is a lot of people and minimum/medium
security would mean they would be there only for awhile and because of that type of
security, family members will move into the area. Who will handle the services
supporting those who do not purchase homes, etc.? Who will pay for the additional
school rooms and teachers needed? Who will pay' for additional police and fire
services? He added, he did not know the answers to the questions he asked and is not
sure the citizens of Kenai were interested in taking on the commitment.
Williams added, consideration should be given to what type of economy is wanted for
Kenai and is there another way to create an economy within the community; is a
prison economy the one wanted for the community; or, would a hotel/convention
center economy be better as it would bring in similar paying jobs, etc.
Williams stated, it wasn't that he didn't support a prison economy, but rather he
questioned if there was a better way and who would take care of the other issues he
discussed. In regard to halfiaray houses, he noted the issue had not been explored and
with a 800-1,000 bed facility, there would be halfway houses and .the question would
be where will they be placed. He added, he wasn't sure the community wanted to
address halfway houses again as they were opposed in the past. The question of
whether the borough had authorization to develop a prison remained unanswered.
Williams stated he was reluctant to support the resolution and preferred setting the
issue aside for the council and let the borough take up the issue at their level and
bring it back to the city later in a broad public forum.
Councilman Bookey stated he had the same concerns Williams stated. He added, he
didn't oppose the Wildwood Facility and believed it a good economic base for the area.
Refemng to the issues of additional police, fire, schools, etc., Bookey agreed they
would have a major impact to the city. He stated he was not ready to support the
resolution.
Councilman Moore asked administration their feelings of what.leverage the city would
have if the borough ordinance would pass in regard to development of a prison outside
the city limits, but in close proximity. Ross answered, without having the RFP to
review and the ability to look at the proposal that might be submitted by KNA, his
question could not be answered. He added, at this time, the specifications were not
known; it was not know what the RFP would require of the contractor; and what the
contractor proposes is not known. Ross stated, he would hope the RFP and RFP
response could be reviewed by council and administration, but without them, the
impact to utilities, schools, infrastructure requirements, etc. could not be calculated.
Moore stated he understood that and wanted to know if the city would have the
opportunity to review and comment. Ross answered, he believed Gilman indicated the
city would have the opportunity to comment at each level.
Councilman Frazer stated he agreed the public vs. private issue should be debated in
a different forum, but knew there would be a lot of debate at different levels. He
added, any major project within close proximity of Kenai would have an impact on city
facilities, infrastructure, etc. whether it would be a major hotel, prison facility, gas
pipeline terminus in Nikiski, etc. However, he believed a general amount of sales tax
would be generated by having a facility developed in close proximity to the city which
would offset some of the costs that may impact the city. In referring to the resolution,
he believed it would be better to set it aside rather than send a negative message. If
.the borough ordinance passes, and negotiations take place between the borough and
state, the city could then give input. He added, he didn't believe he was qualified to
criticize or support a private facility based on the information given, however his
inclination would be to sUpport the resolution with the idea that the city would have
the opportunity to give input later.
MOTION TO TABLE:
Councilman Moore MOVED to table'the resolution until such time more information is
known from the borough. Councilman Bookey SECONDED the motion.
VOTE:
Frazer: !Yes
Swarner: Absent
Bannock: No
Williams:
Moore:
Yes
Yes
Booke¥:
Porter:
Yes
Absent
MOTION PASSED.
Williams noted, tabling the resolution did not mean that comments and discussion
which took place were not relevant to the issue. He thanked all those who spoke to
the issue and felt the council and administration learned a lot from them. The tabling
of the resolution was not a failure or win for either side.
ITEM D:
COMMISSION!COMMITTEE REPORTS
D-1. Council on Aging -- Director Kelso noted the minutes of the last meeting
were included in the packet and that Councilwoman Porter reported on the meeting at
an earlier meeting.
D-2. Airport Commission -- Director Cronkhite reported the minutes of the
last meeting were included in the packet. The next meeting was scheduled for
December 14.
D-3. Harbor Commission -- Councilman Bookey reported the next meeting
was scheduled for December 1 1.
D-4. Library Commission -- Councilman Moore reported on the meeting held
on December 5. He noted there was a recent new hire; there are problems with
ITEM B:
'SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
B-lo
Don Gilman, Concerned Citizens for Responsible Economic
Development -- Economic Feasibility of Proposed Prison Project.
Don Gilman -- P.O. Box 2941, Kenai; 43029 Momm§ Circle, Kenai.
the following:
Gilman explained
Gilman gave a short history of the economic downscales and efforts to find new
businesses for the area over the past 30 years, noting after the passage of ANCSA the
city, borough and state supported the efforts of the Kenai Natives Association, Inc. to
acquire the Wildwood Facility as a portion of their settlement; that there had been
discussion of developing a prison at the Wildwood facility since the 70's; due to lack of
prison beds, the State had been sending prisoners out of state since 1975; and the
Court had directed the State of Alaska to develop facilities in the state in order to bring
prisoners now incarcerated in prisons outside of Alaska, back to Alaska.
Gilman noted the Borough Assembly had placed a proposition on the October ballot
asking if the borough may proceed in the development of and financing for a private
prison. Questions of feasibility, costs, etc. have been asked, however the answers
were not yet known. He added, a study was requested, but had not yet been done and
wouldn't be done if the vote is no.
Gilman requested council to keep an open mind about the project, however he did not
know if the council wanted to make a statement, but the city and the community
always took the lead in trying to fill a void. He added, that without diversification, the
community would remain dependent on the price of off. Gilman added, with a "no"
vote, the borough won't have anything more to do with the project, however the project
would be developed by someone else in the State.
A lengthy discussion followed where it was noted:
· The Department of Corrections stated they will return prisoners to
Alaska, however no specific date had been set.
· Positive issues of having the prison in the community were stated to be:
(1) over the next 25 years, $500 million would come into the area economy through
wages, purchases, property taxes, etc.; (2) spin-off of that income would go throughout
the Borough; and (3) diversification of the economy.
· No study would be done until after the vote to learn what impacts could
be expected to area non-profits, i.e. Boys & Girls Club, Food Bank, etc.
Funds to produce a feasibility study have been authorized by the
borough and a study would be done if the vote is "yes."
The Borough Assembly would, after the October 2001 vote is taken and if
the answer is "yes," decide whether another vote would be taken in regard to
proceeding with the project.
· If an agreement is not signed by the state to proceed with private prison
development, the next Legislature could change the direction of what types of prisons
would be developed, however the court would still demand the prisoners be brought
back to Alaska.
After a feasibility study and engineering is completed and the costs of the
project is understood, a change from private to public probably wouldn't be done
without a summary review process completed. The management company is hired by
the State but still at the direction of the Department of Corrections, and if after a
review, a change could be made of the management company.
Gilman stated he believed it was important the council make a statement in regard to
the project.
Williams noted his concerns as'
There had been a lack of information in regard to the project.
· It is not certain if the facility would be for 800 or 1,000 beds.
· What the impacts would be to the City of Kenai if the vote is "yes."
· After an impact statement is completed and if the vote is "yes," the voters
should have another opportunity to vote on whether to proceed after review of the
impact information.
· No major meetings had taken place between the city and borough as to
impacts to the City, i.e. mechanical, utility services, road services, police department,
administration, etc.
Bookey stated it was very hard for him to decide on the project because of the points
Williams made in regard to lack of impact information. He added, he was aware
development of the prison would be good for economic development, but also was
'aware there would be impacts to the community as well. Bookey stated he thought it
was now in the voters' hands and should be left to them. If the voters say yes, he
would support them and visa versa.
Moore stated he didn't think there was any way the project could be done without the
city's cooperation. Gilman agreed there would be impact to the city, i.e. activity at the
airport, people on the street, businesses reopened, etc. Gilman added, he couldn't
answer the question because he was not aware of what the utility requirements would
be, if they could have their own water system and treatment facility, etc., however it
wasn't beyond the realm of possibility that a stand-alone facility could be built.
Williams stated that even if a stand-alone facility were to be built, the project itself
would still have impacts to the city in regard to police, fire, road service, etc. and the
question of handling cost impacts to those concerns would still be unanswered.
Williams noted the city had similar concerns when the oil companies moved into the
area. Williams added, if the vote is "yes," the city could cope, but the city should have
the opportunity to know what the impacts would be.
Tim Navarre, Assembly President -- Pledged there was never a doubt the Borough
would not work with the city and request input. He noted, a citizen petition requested
a feasibility study to be done. Navarre stated he didn't want a vote taken at this time
because of the lack of information, but the Assembly was put in a position that a vote
was needed to be taken. The borough also backed away from a feasibility study
because only one proposal was received and they felt it was better to wait. Navarre
added, a "yes" vote would allow the Assembly to continue to work toward the
development. He added, the Assembly's actions to date protected the borough and the
city and the borough would work with the city during the whole project. Navarre
stated, it was imperative for the success of the borough for the cities of the borough to
be successful as well. '
Navarre continued, after the vote it would be up to the Assembly to get the answers,
the feasibility study, speak with the cities affected, and make the best decisions for
everyone. He added, the borough had been proactive in making sure the project would
not end up somewhere else out of the borough. Williams noted the council had not
said no. Navarre stated the assembly had said yes to move forward with the project
and he felt that was what the council needed to do.
Williams noted council had hoped to meet with Department of Corrections
Commissioner Pugh prior to the vote being taken to better understand the impacts of
the project. Navarre noted the meeting with the Commissioner had been canceled but
would be held in the next week and would make sure the city would be invited.
Navarre noted there were others on the Peninsula who wanted the council to
determine their opinion of the project in order to better determine how they would
want to vote.
City Manager Snow reported that during a staff meeting earlier in the week, a
roundtable discussion was held in regard to feelings of impacts to the city. She noted
she could prepare a written report for council for their review.
Williams suggested counCil meet for a work session on September 12 for the sole
purpose of discussing the prison and whether or not the council should entertain the
writing of a resolution of any sort for consideration at the regular council meeting on
September 19. Prior to the meeting, the city administration were asked to meet with
members of the borough staff, Comell representatives, etc. and then prepare a report
of what would be considered as impacts to the city for review by council.
Swarner requested the council's work session be coordinated with the borough's
meeting with Commissioner Pugh and Navarre stated he would try to arrange it. Snow
stated she would meet with the representatives and prepare a report of what the staff
think would be the impacts to the city.
Council set a work session for 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 12 in the council
chambers.
Private Prison Proposal for the Kenai Peninsula Borough
In 1995 all of Alaska' s prisons and jails were at,
or over emergency capacity. The State was
found in contempt of court and the Department
of Corrections was ordered to reduce inmate
populations to court approved levels. As a
stopgap measure, the Department entered into a
contract to house Alaska prisoners in a privately
owned and operated prison in Arizona. Today,
more than 800 Alaska prisoners are housed in
Arizona, resulting in an annual loss to the
Alaska economy of $18 million in operating
funds and roughly 211 jobs.
The social cost to Alaska is even more
significant. More than 300 of the prisoners housed
in Arizona are Alaska Natives. Many of these
offenders are from remote regions of Alaska, far
removed from the cultural support systems
necessary for rehabilitation.
This hardship affects all Alaskan prisoners housed
"outside", but the disparate impact upon Native
Alaskans calls into question a problem of grave
social' consequence: Alaska Native males make up
only seven perccn~ofAlaska's general
- :,;~i.~ '~-i~!~ ~!('i:' '!~-'i :~.
populatiOn, yet AlaSka Native men comprise a'
tragic thirty-seven percent of Alaska's prison
population. These offenders do not fit
conventional patterns of criminality and they do
not respond to standard correctional programs.
Except for the ravages of alcohol, most Alaska
Native offenders could lead productive lives.
The problem of out-of-state incarceration is
compounded by the extraordinarily high cost of
Native Alaska Males Population Comparison
100%
80%
60%!
40%i
20%i
0%
State Population Prison Population
Native Alaskan Men
I Other Ethnicity I
building and staffing State operated prisons and
jails. The Alaska Legislature confronted these
issues head on in 2000 by authorizing the
construction and operation of a private prison in
the Kenai Peninsula Borough (HB 149). The
enabling legislation was intended to bolster the
economy of the Borough by returning the
prisoners housed in Arizona.
The proposed prison will be built and operated to
the.highest standards of the correctional ~.~~,~.~.
as' Well aS existing standards unique t° th~"~~~
Department of Corrections. But the guiding intent
and mission of this facility is to exceed the
general security and program requirements of the
DOC by offering the Alaska Native community
the oppommity to take responsibility for programs
designed to reduce recidivism among Alaska
Native peoples.
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Private Prison Proposal
Page I
The Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) will finance construction through the sale of tax exempt bonds.
The bonds will be paid for through an intergovernmental agreement between the KPB and the State of
Alaska to lease eight hundred prison beds for a period of twenty to twenty-five years.
The prison will be located on Kenai Natives Association land adjacent to the existing state operated
Wildwood Correctional Center. Comell Companies of Alaska will operate the prison during the first
five-year term with indigenous, culturally relevant programs augmented by the Kenai Natives
Association in cooperation with other Native corporate and tribal stakeholders.
COMPANIES, INC.
Prison Provider
~ergovernmental Agreement~~
Kenai Peninsula Borough partmem of Corrections
.
Medium Security Private Prison
Page 2
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Private Prison
The private prison will create tremendous economic and social benefits for the Kenai Peninsula
Borough. The following are a few examples'
Materials, goods and services for a $66 million construction project
300 union wage construction jobs over a two (2) year period
211 permanent Alaska prison jobs
$9 million annual payroll directly related to the prison
Millions of dollars in goods and services to be provided for the annual operation
of the prison
In excess of $20 million per year remm to the economy of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough
The private prison will help diversify the economy of the central peninsula by
adding hundreds of year-round permanent jobs. These jobs will not be
dependent on the price of oil or the price of salmon
Every effort will be made to hire locally. Education and training will be
provided locally so that people who are seeking employment do not have to
travel outside the area
Culturally relevant substance abuse programs to reduce recidivism among
Alaska Natives
Enhanced vocational training for rehabilitation of inmates
At the general election on October 2, 2001, the citizens of the Kenai Peninsula Borough will have
the opportunity to vote to make the proposed prison project a reality. Proposition 1 will read:
"May the Kenai Peninsula Borough contract with the State of Alaska and one or more private for-
profit firms for the operation of a prison or correctional institution containing a maximum of 1,000
beds in the Kenai Peninsula Borough?"
Vote yes for jobs. Vote yes for Proposition 1.
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Private Prison Proposal
Page 3
The Kenai Natives Association owns several
hundred acres of land abutting the Kenai Airport
and Wildwood Correctional Center. Sixty to one
hUndred acres near the Wildwood Correctional
Center will be used for the new prison. The
Kenai Natives Association land has been
identified as meeting and, in many cases
exceeding, State and national site criteria for
prisons. Co-locating the new facility in close
proximity to the existing State operated facility
will facilitate program, operational and security
efficiency.
l.ocation of Detail
Site Advantages
Adjacent to Wildwood Correctional
Center
· Public Acceptance
· Potential Sharing of Services with WCC
· Security Back-up
Accessibility
· Access to Airport
· Easy Highway Access
Readily Developable Site
Close to Community Services
Large Parcel Allows
Optimum Security
Page 4
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Private Prison
Comell Companies of Alaska will operate the
proposed prison for the initial first five-year term
of the contract with the State. Comell is the
largest private company currently providing
correctional services in Alaska. Comell is one of
the top three private corrections companies in the
United States
and the only company offering juvenile and adult
secure, pre-release and treatment programs.
Comell operates 72 facilities in 13 states and the
District of Columbia with a total service capacity
of 14,845 prison, jail, pre-release and treatment
beds
The principal design and
construction contractors
will be three Alas ~.~
corporations: Livingston
Slone Inc., VECO
Alaska, Inc. and Neeser
Construction, Inc. Each
company has
individually, and through
joint ventures,
participated in the design,
construction and project
management of many of
Alaska's largest public
projects including the
new Anchorage Jail,
The Elmendorf Miiitary
Mall and the Alaska
SeaLife Center. The
prime contractors will
subcontract services
from local companies.
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Private Prison Proposal
Elmendorf Military Mall
The New Anchorage Jail
The Alaska SeaLife Center
Page 5
150 NorthWillow st., Ste. 33, Kenai, Alaska 99611, Norm Blakely and Thomas Randy Daly, Co-Chairs
Paid for By Concerned Citizens for Responsible Economic Development
Page 6
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Private Prison
PRISON FACTS
Occupancy Data:
800 Beds. - General Population Maximmn Capacity (400 cells)
88 Segregation Beds (80 punitive/admin seg. plus 8 medical seg.) (48 cells)
Medium Security Full-Time Custody Facility for Alaskan Resident Adult Males · No Halfway House; No Work Release
Adjacem to Existing Medium Security Prison- Wildwood Correctional Center:
~ Prison Beds, 112 Pre~_ Beds.
Site Meets State Requirements for Location of Medium Security Facilities
Same Safety Features and Procedures as Public Prison (ACA standards)
Transportation of Inmates Outside of the Facility will ~be Provided by State Department of Public
Safety
Facility to be Owned by the. Kenai Peninsula. Borough and Operated by a Professional ~vate
Corrections Company
Alaska Department of Corrections Solely Determines Sentencing and Release of All Prisoners not
Private Operator
Building: · 72-hour Back-up Power for Security Systems
· Area Approximately 200,000 s.f.
ca Inside Security Perimeter
· Housing Units and Segregation Units
· Support Services (Intake/Release, Programs, Kitchen, Dining, Medical, Visitation, Hearing
Rooms, Chapel, etc.)
· Recreation
· Future Prison Industries
Outside Security Perimeter
· Omside Administration. Building
· Officer Training and Muster Building
· Warehouse/Maintenance Building
Site:
ca:.60-acre Site. Approved-by Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly through. Public Process.
ca Secured Area:
· Dual, High-security Perimeter Fences with Electronic Sensors and Security Lighting
ca Unsecured Area:
· . Administrative. and Support Facilities
· Parking (80 Spaces)
· 200 Ft. Boundary .Separation from Perimeter Fence to ~operty Line
· Perimeter Security Patrol Road Around Secure Perimeter
· Area Lighting will Illuminate to 50 Feet Beyond Security Fence
ca Utilities:
· First Option is City of Kenai .Pu. blic Water and Sewer Services.
· Second. Option is on-site Water and. Sewer. System
· Demand: Water is 56,000 Gallons Per Day; Sewer is 52,000 Gallons Per Day
· ~30,0(K} Gallon Water Storage Tank On-site for Fire Protection
· Natural Gas, Electricity and' Communications from Public Utility Companies
Kenai Prison
September 12, 2001
956~-?·
PERIMETER
PATROL ROAD
BAS HOUSING
·
, ~ JHOUSING
RECREATION L
J SUPPORT
S ERVIC~.~.S
_
HOUSING
HOUSING
YARD .
IRE
INDUSTRIES
PERIMETER SECURITY
DOUBLE
SALLY HOUSE
ADMIN
MAINTENENCE
-' ' WAREHOUSE
~..
1
VISITOR
PARK
(4O)
J EMPLOYEE (127)
°~ORGEN-AVENUE
~ 200'-0' ~,
TRAINING
CENTER
-15'-0'
NN,,,,,~ APPROXIMATE .SC, ALE: i"=
SITE MAP FOR PROPOSED PRISON
ON THE KENAI PENINSULA
Wildwood
Area
COOK
INLET
Site Features
Adjacent to Wildwood
Correctional Center
· Potential Sharing of Services with
WCC
· Joint Back-up Security for Both
Institutions
Accessibility
· Potential Secure Access to Airport
· Good Highway Transportation
· Good Proximity to State Courthouse
Isolated Location with Generous
Natural Buffers
KEN/i~
Readily Developable Site
Large Parcel Allows Optimum
Security
Close to Commercial Services
Existing Water & Sewer
Infrastructure
Proposed Site Size: --60 acres
PUBL.I:¢ NOTZCE
The Kenai City Council will hold a work session on Wednesday, September 12,
200! et 7:00 p.m. in the Kenai City Council Chambers. The purpose of the
work session is to discuss the impacts on the City of Kenai of the proposed
private prison et Wildwood. The public is invited to attend.
Carol L. Frees, City Clerk D948/211