HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2930
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. |
As Passed House:
February 17, 2016
Title: An act relating to reducing the population requirement in a consortium of counties in order to operate a juvenile correctional facility.
Brief Description: Reducing the population requirement in a consortium of counties in order to operate a juvenile correctional facility.
Sponsors: Representatives Parker and Riccelli.
Brief History:
Committee Activity:
Early Learning & Human Services: 2/2/16, 2/3/16 [DP].
Floor Activity:
Passed House: 2/17/16, 98-0.
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EARLY LEARNING & HUMAN SERVICES |
Majority Report: Do pass. Signed by 11 members: Representatives Kagi, Chair; Senn, Vice Chair; Walsh, Ranking Minority Member; Dent, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Hawkins, Kilduff, McCaslin, Ortiz-Self, Sawyer, Scott and Walkinshaw.
Staff: Luke Wickham (786-7146).
Background:
Juvenile Detention.
Counties with a population of 50,000 or more must maintain a juvenile detention facility. Juveniles may not be confined in a jail or holding facility for adults except when the confinement is separate from the sight and sound of adult inmates for:
a period not exceeding 24 hours excluding weekends and holidays and only for the purpose of an initial court appearance in a county where no juvenile detention facility is available; or
not more than 6 hours pursuant to a lawful detention in the course of an investigation.
Juveniles who have been transferred to an adult court may be confined in a jail or holding facility for adults.
Juvenile probation counselor and detention services are generally administered by the County Superior Courts. However, when the county legislative authority provides for alternative administration of the juvenile correctional facility by ordinance, these services may be administered by a county legislative authority if a consortium of three or more counties east of the Cascade mountains with a population greater than 530,000 jointly operates a juvenile correctional facility.
Martin Hall Consortium.
The Martin Hall juvenile correctional facility is located on the Eastern State Hospital campus in Medical Lake, Washington, in Spokane County. In 1995 nine Washington counties entered into an interlocal agreement to jointly operate and utilize a juvenile correctional facility. In 1996 this consortium of counties leased Martin Hall from Washington state for 50 years, with an option for an additional 50 years. The counties that are included in the Martin Hall Consortium include Adams, Asotin, Douglas, Ferry, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Spokane, and Whitman counties.
Martin Hall juvenile correctional facility began operation in 1999 and is operated by Community, Counseling, and Correctional Services, Incorporated. The building contains 24,000 square feet of space, including 44 juvenile detention cells, central and private visiting rooms, a booking area, medical clinic, laundry, administration and education wings, and indoor exercise, intake and support spaces. Martin Hall also contracts with several counties in Montana for juvenile detention services.
Summary of Bill:
The population size is decreased from 530,000 to 200,000 for a consortium of three or more counties in Eastern Washington that may prescribe for alternative administration of a juvenile correctional facility.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
(In support) Spokane County needs less space, and other counties need more beds. This bill would provide that flexibility. This bill is not intended to reduce any juvenile detention beds. Spokane County has not used Martin Hall since the mid-2000s. A drop in the population requirement will allow Spokane county to leave the Martin Hall consortium and allow the consortium to continue without Spokane County. Passage of the bill would not automatically result in the departure of Spokane County from the consortium. The consortium counties would still need to vote to allow Spokane County to leave the consortium.
(Opposed) None.
Persons Testifying: Representative Parker, prime sponsor; and Mike Burgess, Spokane County.
Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: None.