Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prison Relocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts conference report on prison relocation bill after narrowing scope on private prisons
Summary
The Utah House adopted the conference committee report on Eighth Substitute Senate Bill 72, which relocates and directs planning for a new prison but removes prescriptive language requiring the authority to consider private prisons. Representative Wilson moved adoption; the bill passed 51-22 and will return to the Senate.
The Utah House on March 14 adopted the second conference committee report replacing Senate Bill 72 with an eighth substitute that directs a prison authority to plan for a potential new prison site but removes language that would have required consideration of private prisons.
Representative Wilson moved adoption of the conference committee report and described the change as narrowing prior requirements. “All we've done now is said that, Prada will issue request for proposal looking for a potential… new prison development project means a project for a new prison at 1 or more suitable locations in the state other than the location of the current prison,” Wilson said while explaining that the substitute is silent about mandating private-prison options.
The sponsor told the chamber that the former, more prescriptive language requiring requests for proposal to include private-provider evaluations was removed; under the substitute the authority may consider private options but is not compelled to do so. Wilson also stressed that no construction or final action could occur until the authority returns with a recommendation to the Legislature and the governor’s office.
Representative Layton urged caution, arguing the absence of an explicit prohibition leaves the door open to privatization. “When we deprive a citizen of their liberty, we have a moral and an ethical duty to keep direct control and not delegate that power to a profit making entity,” Layton said, citing concerns about access to volunteers and oversight in private facilities.
Representative Noel and others questioned what specific programming and lines were removed; the sponsor confirmed provisions related to prescribed RFP requirements and other programmatic language were deleted or scaled back in the eighth substitute.
The motion to adopt the conference committee report carried in the House. The clerk announced that Eighth Substitute Senate Bill 72 received 51 yes votes and 22 no votes. The bill will be returned to the Senate for further consideration.
The next procedural step is transmission to the Senate; the authority named in the bill must return with its final recommendation before any relocation or development action proceeds.
