Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mental Health Facility Location topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Representative Howard Urges Moving Secure Forensic Facility Near Utah State Hospital

Utah House of Representatives · February 10, 1994
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Rep. Howard asked the House to support a change relocating the proposed secure forensic mental-health facility from next to the state prison to a site near the Utah State Hospital in Provo, arguing it would be cheaper and reduce escapes; discussion included cost and safety trade-offs.

Representative Howard spoke on S.B. 56 and urged relocating a proposed secure forensic mental-health facility from a site adjacent to the Utah State Prison to land near the Utah State Hospital in Provo. "I am standing to ask that a correctional facility be moved into my district within a few blocks of my house," Howard said, then argued the change makes practical sense because many persons sent for evaluation are already treated at the State Hospital.

Howard told colleagues his concern is public safety and operational efficiency: he said the State Hospital at present is not secure and that prisoners sent there for treatment "fairly regularly escape," so placing a secure forensic facility adjacent to the hospital would reduce the risk and be cheaper than moving or duplicating hospital services. He framed the bill as a correction to existing code language that currently locates the secure bed facility next to the prison.

Colleagues asked clarifying and procedural questions; Representative Evans noted a conflict-of-interest declaration on another bill earlier in the session but did not oppose the location argument in this discussion. The sponsor and questioners emphasized that the change is intended to improve operations and lower costs, but some members asked why the location needed to be specified in statute rather than determined administratively.

Action: the House recorded the vote on S.B. 56 as passing in the excerpted text and returned the bill to the Senate for signatures of the president. The transcript records the vote result as affirmative by voice and announced count in the excerpt.

Next steps: the bill was to be returned to the Senate for signatures and any technical amendments.