BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 1351 (Rubio) - Peace officers: community correctional
facilities.
Amended: March 28, 2012 Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0
Urgency: Yes Mandate: No (See Staff Comments)
Hearing Date: May 7, 2012 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 1351, an urgency measure, would expand the
definition of "correctional officer" to include peace officers
employed by a city, county, or city and county which operates a
facility that provides housing for inmates sentenced to county
correctional facilities (CCFs) under contract with public
agencies, as specified, who have the authority and
responsibility for maintaining custody of inmates sentenced to
or housed in those facilities, and who perform tasks related to
the operation of those facilities.
Fiscal Impact: Unknown, potential future costs in the range of
$50,000 to $100,000 (General Fund) per year related to state
reimbursement of local costs covered under several existing
reimbursable mandates related to peace officers.
Background: Under existing law, community correctional
facilities (CCFs) are specified as facilities, the primary
purpose of which is to provide housing, supervision, counseling,
and other correctional programs for persons committed to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Prior to
the enactment of Public Safety Realignment 2011, CCFs were only
authorized to be operated by public or private entities under
contract with the CDCR.
Pursuant to Public Safety Realignment 2011, lower-level
offenders previously sentenced to state prison will now be under
the jurisdiction of the counties, and will serve their sentences
in local jails. Because the population previously housed in CCFs
under contract with CDCR would be the same individuals now under
local custody, the Legislature authorized local boards of
supervisors to contract with local public agencies to use CCFs
to house inmates sentenced to county jail. However, when
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 1
authority was extended to local boards to contract with public
agencies to operate CCFs, the designation of correctional
officers previously afforded peace officer status under CDCR
contracts was not extended to correctional officers employed
under local contracts operating CCFs to provide housing for
inmates sentenced to county jail.
Proposed Law: This bill would revise the definition of
"correctional officer" to include peace officers employed by a
city, county, or city and county which operates a CCF under
contract with public agencies and subject to approval by a
county board of supervisors. This bill states that it is an
urgency statute necessary in order to ensure that certain
correctional officers employed by a city, county, or city and
county retain their status as peace officers at the earliest
possible time.
Related Legislation: AB 117 (Committee on Budget) Chapter
39/2011 made statutory changes necessary to implement the Public
Safety Realignment portions of the 2011-12 budget by making
additional substantive and technical changes relevant to AB 109
(Committee on Budget), Chapter 15/2011, pertaining to the
realignment of certain low level felony offenders and adult
parolees from state to local jurisdiction. Among other
provisions, the bill provided that upon agreement with the
sheriff or director of the county department of corrections, a
board of supervisors may enter into a contract with other public
agencies to provide housing for inmates sentenced to county jail
in CCFs.
Staff Comments: The California Constitution requires the state
to reimburse local agencies for costs mandated by the state.
Although not keyed as a state-mandated local program, to the
extent the provisions of this bill expand the number of peace
officers could potentially increase costs covered under several
existing reimbursable mandates:
Threats Against Peace Officers - PC section 832.9
requires local agencies employing peace officers to
reimburse the officer and/or family for actual and
necessary moving/relocation expenses incurred due to
receipt of a threat upon the officer's life due to the
officer's employment. The costs associated with this
mandate are likely negligible statewide (per SCO, under
$50,000 annually statewide).
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 2
Peace Officers Personnel Records: Unfounded
Complaints and Discovery - PC section 832.5 requires
local agencies to perform various notification and
records retention requirements related to complaints and
notices of discovery/disclosure of peace officer
personnel records. Costs associated with this mandate are
likely minor statewide (per SCO, approximately $600,000
annually statewide).
Health Benefits for Survivors of Peace Officers and
Firefighters - Labor Code section 4856 requires local
agencies to provide lifelong health benefits to the
survivors of peace officers and firefighters who have
died in the line of duty. The magnitude of mandate
reimbursement is unknown at this time but could
potentially be significant to the extent payment for
lifelong health benefits for survivors of even one
officer is required to be paid (per SCO, current annual
payments of $1.6 million statewide).
The Commission on State Mandates has determined that any city,
county, or special district that employs peace officers pursuant
to Penal Code section 830 et seq., and incurs increased costs as
a direct result of the mandates listed above is eligible to
claim reimbursement of these costs.
Peace officers covered under the Peace Officers Procedural Bill
of Rights (POBOR) mandate are cited pursuant to Government Code
section 3301. As correctional officers specified under Penal
Code section 830.55 are not cited in Section 3301, it does not
appear these peace officers would be covered under the POBOR
mandate.
Given potential costs are dependent upon various factors that
are undeterminable at this time, total future costs associated
with the aforementioned state-reimbursable mandates is unknown.
Costs could range from minor to significant if claims for
reimbursement should be filed. Staff notes that public CCFs have
indicated that they have not charged the state nor sought
reimbursement for these costs since their establishment in 1990.
Under existing law, correctional officers as defined in this
section are required to complete specified training standards.
SB 1351 (Rubio)
Page 3
To the extent the provisions of this bill increase the number of
peace officers employed by local agencies could increase the
costs for the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) to reimburse local agencies for statutorily-required
training. However, as the majority of the officers impacted were
likely previously employed as correctional officers under
contract with CDCR and have already completed the training, any
additional costs would likely be minor.