Senators Debate RFP Requirement for New Prison Capacity as Bill’s Sponsor Promises Narrowing Amendment

SALT LAKE CITY — Senate debate on first substitute Senate Bill 175 centered on whether the state should require a request for proposals (RFP) before contracting for any new correctional facility and on the bill’s potential fiscal and local economic consequences.

The bill’s sponsor told senators the measure is intended to start a planning process so the Department of Corrections can prepare an RFP and evaluate private-sector capacity without obligating the legislature to accept any bids. “The cost savings have been anywhere from 5 to 10%,” the sponsor said, adding the principal goal was to “alleviate the taxpayers’ need for future bonding” for capital projects.

Senator Peterson said he could not support the bill in its current form and listed three main concerns: that the bill could jeopardize bonded indebtedness counties took on to build local jails; that the RFP language, as drafted, may preclude the Department of Corrections from bidding; and that building capacity could change judicial behavior by creating an incentive to fill new beds. “I guarantee you they will fill this facility up,” Peterson said.

Senator Thomas sought clarification on whether soliciting bids would obligate the state; the sponsor replied it would not and that any contract would still require legislative approval. Thomas also noted the committee discussed visiting private prisons and that the RFP process estimated an $85,000 fiscal impact to begin — a figure the sponsor said reflected the fiscal analyst’s estimate that a new Department of Corrections staffer would be needed if the RFP requirement were ongoing.

A senator speaking in favor of the bill said prior work and bids had been done and described privatization as a tool that had worked in other states; that senator argued private options could relieve pressure on bed capacity and be financially beneficial to the state. Senator Hatch confirmed local governments would be eligible to bid but warned the measure should not jeopardize towns that had relied on prison-related jobs.

Senator Hilliard pressed the sponsor over the bill’s definitions, saying lines 69–70 could unintentionally require an RFP before contracting with halfway houses or for marginal increases at county jails. The sponsor said he would offer an amendment, if the bill reaches third reading, to narrow the requirement so it applies only to the next major (approximately 500-bed) facility, and to remove the ongoing fiscal obligation that prompted the $85,000 note.

No formal vote or final outcome was recorded in the provided transcript excerpt. The Senate appeared poised to consider the sponsor’s amendment at a later stage if the bill advances.

The transcript records multiple points of concern about the bill’s unintended consequences for county finances and rural economies, and about the administrative cost if the RFP requirement were perpetual rather than limited to a single large facility.