BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
320 (Solorio)
Hearing Date: 08/27/2009 Amended: 07/23/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
7-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 320 gives counties seeking to provide existing
county jail beds for use as state prison reentry beds, as
specified, the same funding preference for jail financing under
Phase 2 of AB 900 as counties that assist the state in siting a
prison reentry facility. This bill specifies the requirements
for any agreements between the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) and counties. This bill contains an
urgency statute.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Change/implement Out years: unknown costs,
possibly significant General
new evaluation standards
Inmate transfer to county jails Unknown savings,
potentially significant General
Bond pressure Pressure in the out-years, likely in
excess of $200,000 Bond
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Existing law provides a system for funding county jail facility
construction through bonds approved in AB 900, in 2007. The
provisions of AB 900 contained certain general guidelines for
county jail construction funding proposals, but also gave the
Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) and CDCR the
responsibility of developing evaluation standards and a
determination process. AB 900 stated that "CDCR and CSA shall
give funding preference to counties that assist the state in
siting reentry facilities, pursuant to Section 6270," but the
departments actually created a rubric, point system, and
proposal standards to decide which counties would receive county
jail construction funding. This bill would require CDCR and CSA
to change their evaluation process to give coequal funding
preference to counties who will provide current or future space
in county jails for use as reentry facilities. The evaluation of
existing jail facilities, to the extent they are proposed for
reentry use, would also require a different process for
determining feasibility than evaluating a new site location on
which a facility could be constructed to meet CDCR and CSA's
reentry facility requirements. At a time when CDCR has sustained
extensive budget cuts, it is unclear whether this additional
workload could be fully absorbed without addition temporary
staff or, at a minimum, overtime for existing staff.
This bill is intended to allow more counties to qualify for the
jail construction bond money approved in AB 900. Phase I of the
reentry facilities project is still incomplete, in large part,
because counties have been unable to meet the requirements to be
approved for bond money. Six counties that applied for funding
were denied, at least in
Page 2
AB 320 (Solorio)
part, because of an inability to assist CDCR in siting a new
reentry facility. More counties have opted not to apply because
they cannot, or do not want to, site new reentry facilities
within their counties. (Other counties have been denied funding
because of match requirements, or parolee services requirements,
not related to reentry facility siting). The provisions of this
bill will likely ensure jail construction funding for counties
that otherwise would not have been given funding under the
existing requirements.
Easing requirements on counties creates bond pressure to expend
the full amount of approved bond funding in Phase II. This bill
came about as the result of counties finding it too difficult to
site reentry facilities, and looking for an easier alternative
to assist the state and still get the equivalent benefit of
having sited a reentry facility. To the extent that counties
will now cease to have construction money tied to siting a state
reentry facility, assisting the state in that lengthy process
will be disincentivized in favor of a sometimes easier option
that will receive coequal funding preference. Absent this bill,
if counties were still unable to assist CDCR in siting reentry
facilities, it is likely that some of the Phase II bond
authority would go unused. In 2017, the authority to issue Phase
II bonds ends. Any money that was not awarded by that time would
not be able to be awarded, and its debt would not be incurred by
the state. While it is true that a ceiling of Phase II money in
AB 900 has already been approved specifically for jail
construction, it was also approved with the specific funding
preferences written into the bill because it is difficult to
site a new reentry facility, and CDCR needed county assistance.
Under current regulations, about one half of the Phase I money
applied for was granted. This bill would make it easier to
expend Phase II money.
To the extent that county jails provide reentry facility space
in their existing jails, this bill could save the state money.
Entering into long-term contracts with counties to use existing
space would allow inmates to be transferred much more quickly
than building a new facility. While reentry facilities are not
necessarily significantly less expensive than state prisons,
they are statutorily prohibited from being more expensive, and
their use would ease prison overcrowding. This bill, however,
does not require the use of existing facilities in order to
receive coequal funding preference. This bill specifically
provides for the option of using "future jail beds to be
constructed with funding made available under this chapter." To
the extent that counties seek jail construction funding for
future beds that, when built, will in part be used for reentry
facilities (owned by the county as part of the county jails),
there will be no short term savings.