Mr. CARLSON. Alderson, W. Va., is by no means in the middle of a metropolitan area. Senator HRUSKA. It was the product of only 5 days thinking. SALE OF WISCONSIN PRISON Senator PASTORE. Are there any further questions? We have correspondence that I am going to place in the record, together with the statement with reference to the Wisconsin prison, and also the letter from the Attorney General to me on the same subject. [The letter follows:] Office of the Attorney General Washington, D. C. January 12, 1973 Honorable John O. Pastore Chairman, Subcommittee on Department of State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Pastore: This is a request for approval to reprogram funds appropriated to Buildings and Facilities, Bureau of Prisons. This proposal involves the reprogramming of funds in the amount of $1.5 million from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1972 for construction of a West Coast Youth Complex, for availability and application to the cost of a lease-purchase agreement with the State of Wisconsin for the acquisition of a correctional institution which has become excess to the State's needs. The State of Wisconsin has recently completed a correctional institution located near Oxford, in Adams County, with an operating capacity for 500 inmates. It was constructed for approximately $12.5 million dollars. Due to a population reduction in Wisconsin's correctional system, and revised utilization of existing State facilities, the State has determined that the facility will not be needed, and has indicated a willingness to sell it. Should the Federal Government acquire the Wisconsin institution, it would serve the Bureau of Prisons as an adult (25 years and older) correctional institution, relieve crowding in Federal facilities in the Midwest and, through secondary effects, also relieve severe crowding in the Northeast. Nationwide, Bureau facilities are overcrowded by about 2,400 offenders, and further crowding is anticipated as we absorb increased numbers of offenders being committed to Federal institutions. The situation has been further aggravated by the unexpected need to house inmates sentenced for violations of the U.S. Code in the District of Columbia who under previous policy would have been incarcerated in District of Columbia facilities. Moreover, acquisition of the institution would directly reduce the need to construct future adult facilities for this program area. The State of Wisconsin has tentatively agreed to sell the facility at their cost, excluding the cost of land and certain expenses incurred in administration of the project. The total payment, based on a 20 year lease-purchase arrangement, would be approximately $21 million. Tentatively, we anticipate a variable payment schedule with initial annual payments estimated at $1.5 million dollars. Funds for future payments will be requested annually in the Buildings and Facilities appropriations. The Department of Justice is coordinating this proposal with the General Services Administration, and we have requested delegation of authority from the GSA (contingent upon appropriate congressional authorization) to enter into the proposed lease-purchase agreement with the State of Wisconsin. WEST COAST YOUTH COMPLEX The West Coast Youth Complex, for which construction funds were appropriated in Fiscal Year 1972, consists of three facilities. One of these facilities is now under construction near San Francisco. The second will be located in San Diego, and construction will start in the near future. A third facility was to be located in Ventura County and would have provided for about 400 Federal youth offenders. Recent discussions with officials of the State of California, however, have revealed certain surplus program capacity in State institutions that could be utilized for Federal offenders. We are negotiating with State officials to reach a contractual agreement whereby the State of California would provide custody and treatment for about 300-400 Federal youth offenders. Consequently, we propose to defer construction of the Ventura County facility in anticipation that those offenders who would have been housed in this facility can be diverted to State institutions. Since the contractual relationship with California appears feasible for the foreseeable future, the planned construction of the Ventura County Federal facility can be deferred. It is from the availability of funds saved that we are proposing the reprogramming of 1.5 million for the initial payment to acquire the Wisconsin correctional facility. I believe it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to acquire the Wisconsin institution, and the Office of Management and Budget supports this position. Our need for the facility is urgent, and I request your favorable consideration and approval. If you desire additional information at this time regarding this proposal, please let me know. Sincerely, nie J. Stein dunst Attorney General Hon. RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Since August 1, 1972 all criminal indictments filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia have contained one or more counts charging violations of federal criminal statutes. This practice will continue. It is the opinion of the Judges of this court that the prison facilities of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections are overcrowded, that discipline is lax or non-existent and that sentences imposed by Judges of this court have frequently not been carried out as intended by the sentencing Judge. Furthermore, it appears that prisoners entrusted to the care of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections are not protected from sexual assault and bodily harm at the hands of other prisoners and that there are frequent escapes and releases from the Department's custody of prisoners deemed to be highly dangerous to the law abiding citizens of this area. Moreover, the services, facilities, personnel and programs are totally inadequate insofar as sentencing objectives are concerned. Accordingly, the Judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, after full consideration at an Executive Session of the court held on Thursday, October 12, 1972, are urgently requesting that you, as the Attorney General of the United States, designate institutions other than the facilities under the supervision or control of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections for incarceration of all defendants hereafter convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as a result of indictments filed subsequent to August 1, 1972, unless an individual Judge of this court shall otherwise affirmatively request at the time of commitment. DEAR JUDGE SIRICA: I have your letter of October 13, 1972, concerning problems relating to the confinement of defendants committed to custody by Judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As a result of your request, I have asked the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to assume custody of all sentenced U.S. Code offenders indicted subsequent to August 1, 1972, for whom there are no legal impediments which bar their removal from the District of Columbia. We will explore alternatives and will have a further report for you in the near future. Sincerely, ATTORNEY GENERAL. COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSES: PROPOSED FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OXFORD, WISCONSIN The purpose of this paper is to examine and determine, through comparative cost analyses, the best minimum cost approach to the acquisition of the Adams County Correctional Facility, Adams County, Wisconsin by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for use as a correctional facility. The comparative cost analyses format was developed by the Office of Management and Budget and is required as an internal planning document where Government decisions to lease or purchase general purpose real property are involved. The specific format is set forth in Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-104 dated June 14, 1972. The analysis compensates for different funding methods, interest or discount rates, and/or time lending periods for purposes of comparison. Funds expended in different quantities or during a different "stream" of payment periods (or both) require an economic model to facilitate comparison in this report. The project was examined and evaluated on the basis of the present value method for either direct purchase, lease, or lease-acquisition of the facility from the State of Wisconsin. The project time period was established at 17 years, with interest set at 7%, for each of the alternative present value methods examined. The property involved is a newly completed maximum security correctional facility located in Adams County, Wisconsin. The facility has an operating capacity for 500 inmates and was completed in 1972, for approximately $14.3 million. The State of Wisconsin's administration has determined that the facility will not be needed due to a population reduction in Wisconsin's correction system and revised utilization of existing state correctional facilities. Generally, present value means how much today's dollars are worth in the future. Specifically, it means that the State of Wisconsin is willing to enter into a lease-acquisition agreement with the Bureau of Prisons concerning the Wisconsin facility, in return for the Bureau of Prisons paying the State of Wisconsin the equivalent of $8,120,000 in today's dollars over the next 17 years. Precisely, the Bureau of Prisons feels that the lease-acquisition agreement would be the most efficient decision for the Government because it requires the least payment (minimum cost), at the end of 17 years. If the Government were to purchase the facility directly, the State of Wisconsin would require $14,263,000 in today's dollars. See attached Present Value Calculation and Summaries for Alternative Methods for Acquiring the Wisconsin facility. PRESENT VALUE Cost SUMMARIES For AlternaTIVE METHODS OF ACQUISITION (Federal Correctional Institution, Oxford, Wisc.) 1 Operation and maintenance costs are borne by the Government and are assumed to be identical for all three acquisition methods. Therefore, they are omitted in this comparison. Imputed insurance premiums are estimated to be negligible relative to other costs and therefore omitted. 2 Annual lease payments in constant dollars are calculated. Then, each constant dollar lease payment is discounted at 7 percent (See Attachment A). 3 Annual lease-purchase payments totaling $20,888,316 plus purchase of $63,000 (17 years annual payments). The annual payments in constant dollars are calculated. Then each constant dollar payment is discounted at 7 percent (technique is shown in Attachment A). |