HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2951

BYRepresentatives Braddock, Brooks, D. Sommers and Sayan; by request of Department of Corrections

Establishing procedures for siting of correctional facilities.

House Committe on Health Care

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (7)

      Signed by Representatives Braddock, Chair; Day, Vice Chair; Brooks, Ranking Republican Member; Prentice, D. Sommers, Vekich and Wolfe.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (3)

      Signed by Representatives Chandler, Morris and Sprenkle.

House Staff:Antonio Sanchez (786-7383)

Rereferred House Committee on Capital Facilities & Financing

Majority Report:  The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second substitute bill do pass.  (12)

      Signed by Representatives H. Sommers, Chair; Rasmussen, Vice Chair; Beck, Betrozoff, Bowman, Braddock, Fraser, Heavey, Jacobsen, Peery, Rector and Wang.

House Staff:      Antonio Sanchez (786-7383)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL FACILITIES & FINANCING

FEBRUARY 15, 1990

BACKGROUND:

Prison inmate population estimates indicate Washington state will need 2,536 new prison beds by the end of the 1991 biennium. This rapid growth of inmates will require that locations for building prisons be identified and new prison facilities be built within a relatively short period of time.

The current process used for siting and constructing a prison facility is under the direction of the Department of Corrections.  The process can be significantly delayed if challenged by local jurisdictions.  Local communities can use the local judicial, zoning, and permitting processes to delay, or ultimately refuse, the siting of a prison facility within their jurisdiction.

There are no provisions that establish specific time limits within which a local jurisdiction must review and issue or deny applications related to the siting and construction of correctional facilities.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  A Correctional Facilities Siting Authority is created, consisting of seven members.  Siting committees are also established for the purpose of reviewing sites identified by the authority and recommending specific areas and jurisdictions for locating prison facilities.  The siting authority is given the broad responsibility to:  identify the siting areas for review by the siting committees; appoint siting committees; monitor and ensure that the time frames for local government procedures are in compliance; request the Department of Corrections' environmental analysis; and make the final selection of the needed correctional sites. The selection criteria for membership and the process used by the siting authority is specified.  The siting authority will be required to conduct public hearings and submit written findings.

The siting decision reached by the siting authority is binding and all local jurisdictions are required to approve the final site selection.  The final decisions of the authority, however, are subject to a modified judicial review process.  The judicial review must be filed in the Thurston County Superior Court.  The Superior Court judicial review is conducted for the purpose of certifying the petition for review to the supreme court, unless the record is incomplete.

The approval or denial of applications for permits, licensees, and certificates submitted to the state, counties, cities, or political subdivisions are limited to 45 days from the time of initial application.  Failure of the local jurisdiction to act on the siting or construction applications within the specified timeframe results in automatic approval.

The director of the Department of Community Development is responsible for establishing and enforcing the correctional facility standards for fire protection and safety.

The statutory limits placed on inmate capacity on the Twin Rivers Corrections Center in Monroe and the Washington Corrections Center at Shelton is removed.

An emergency condition is declared.

The Department of Corrections is required to provide impact funds to counties to mitigate the impact of existing facilities and to site and construct new facilities.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  Additional emphasis is placed on the need to consider what the impact would be on a community if a facility were located near the community.

The authority's ability to exercise eminent domain has been removed.

A requirement that the department provide impact funds to counties to mitigate the impact of existing facilities and to site and construct new correctional facilities is added.

CHANGES PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL FACILITIES & FINANCING (SECOND SUBSTITUTE BILL):  The four legislative members are removed from the siting authority.

Additional site selection criteria are added to the siting committee's review process.  These criteria include the following considerations:

            a)security and safety of the community;

            b)current approved land use plans and zoning restrictions;

            c)impact of local correctional facilities as well as state facilities on communities; and

            d)favorable consideration of communities having positive interest in being selected as a site.

The impact mitigation funding formula is removed and replaced with authority to provide mitigation funds and other compensation as appropriated by the Legislature.

Local governments are allowed to use the siting authority to site local jail facilities.

The 30 day time period for the siting authority to appoint siting committees is clarified to start when the Department of Corrections requests a site for a correctional facility.

The siting authority is required to appoint a local advisory committee to work with the Department of Corrections during the environmental review process.

The secretary of the Department of Corrections is allowed to participate in discussions of environmental review and the director of the Department of Community Development is allowed to participate in discussions of fire safety.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    (Health Care)  Chase Riveland, Department of Corrections; and Mike Redman, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

(Capital Facilities & Financing)  Jim Sewell, City of Grandview; and Carl Stevens, City of Grandview.

House Committee - Testified Against:      (Health Care)  Kurt Sharar, Washington State Association of Counties.

(Capital Facilities & Financing)  Gene Pollard, Alliance for Responsible Corrections; Cathy Pfeil, Neighbors for a Safe Thurston County; Andrea Dahl, A.W.C.; Marty Curry, H.S.S.P.O. City of Seattle; and Jeff Parsons, WA Environmental Council (against Section 13 only).

House Committee - Testimony For:    (Health Care)  The current wave of prison inmates requires that new prisons be built within a short period of time.  The ability to locate appropriate sites and build prison facilities will be greatly enhanced if a fair yet expedited process is established.

(Capital Facilities & Financing)  Prison facilities can provide a community like Grandview with additional economic development.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (Health Care)  Local governments will need to have greater input into the siting process.  Those areas that already have prisons located near them should not be considered under the same criteria as other communities.  They should not be required to have an additional prison located in their community.

(Capital Facilities & Financing)  The judicial review process should not be modified.