Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Facility Marana topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caucus questions Marana Prison lease bill after members say no federal interest confirmed
Summary
Representative Israel presented SB 12‑94, which would let the Arizona Department of Administration lease the Marana Prison site to the federal government or a federal contractor for $1 per year to house people detained for immigration violations.
Get email alerts on the Corrections Facility Marana topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Israel presented SB 12‑94, which would require the Arizona Department of Administration to lease the Marana Prison site to the United States government or a private contractor of the federal government for $1 per year to house individuals detained for immigration violations.
Representative Volk (Representative) said, according to what she had heard, “there has been no communication from the federal government that they are interested in this,” and cautioned that an unprompted lease would limit options for repurposing the facility. She said the town of Marana is interested in repurposing the site for uses that would “help economically.”
Representative Wickerbock asked whether a study committee chaired by Representative Livingston had reported; in caucus Representative Israel and others said a Representative Livingston proposal had sought to commission a study through the Department of Administration to examine alternative uses of the facility, including transitional uses, but that the study had not been completed and the facility remained for sale.
Representative Symtech and others said they had asked the bill’s sponsor in public safety committee whether community members or the district senator had been contacted; caucus members said the sponsor had not reached out to the local representatives prior to filing.
Why it matters: the measure would constrain the state Department of Administration’s options for the Marana facility by specifying a $1‑per‑year lease for federal detention purposes; caucus members said there is no evidence the federal government has requested the site and flagged the need for local consultation and study.
What happened in caucus: Representative Coors signaled intent to remove the bill from the consent calendar; caucus discussion recorded concern and requested further local outreach and review of any pending study before proceeding.
