BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1768
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1768 (Solorio) - As Introduced: February 9, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill modifies local government eligibility and competition
for county jail construction bond funding under phase II of the
Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007
(AB 900), to give equal consideration to counties providing
county jail beds for use as state reentry beds as to counties
providing stand-alone sites for new state reentry facilities.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires counties interested in providing reentry services to
state inmates - in order to qualify for state jail bond
funding - to enter into long-term agreements with the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to provide
such services. CDCR would be required to certify the proposed
reentry services meet their approval and counties must meet AB
900 program requirements, including risk and needs
assessments, wrap-around services, and collaboration with
local government and local service providers.
2)Specifies the minimum number of jails beds to be used as
reentry beds for prison inmates:
a) Any county with a population of 500,000 or more must
provide 500 jail beds designated and used exclusively as
reentry beds for prison inmates.
b) Any county with a population of less than 500,000 must
provide at least as many jail beds to be used as reentry
beds for prison inmates as the number of jail beds funded
by AB 900 for county jail inmates.
AB 1768
Page 2
3)Specifies that counties are not limited to using existing jail
beds for state reentry beds; counties may propose leasing to
the state local jail beds to be constructed with funding made
available under AB 900.
FISCAL EFFECT
To the extent a county has jail bed capacity and enters into a
lease with the state for use of those beds as reentry beds, this
bill would result in increased local revenue and commensurate
state costs. Costs to site and build up to 16,000 local reentry
beds are covered by AB 900 bond authorization. AB 900 bond funds
are not eligible for lease costs; CDCR would have to use GF for
lease arrangements. Presumably these costs would eventually be
offset by reduced state per capita costs in these local reentry
facilities, but startup costs would be significant, potentially
into the tens of millions (GF), depending on the number of beds
leased.
In addition, to the extent this bill results in additional debt
service that would otherwise have not existed, there would be
significant and ongoing bond debt payments, potentially in the
tens to hundreds of millions (GF).
Changing the current award criteria for $470 million in
uncommitted phase II jail bonds ($617 million of the $750
million in Phase I as been committed) need not affect the
state's goal of siting reentry beds in local communities, as
long as CDCR enters into credible agreements regarding beds and
services, as authorized by the bill.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to assist counties who have
been unable to provide state reentry facility sites to compete
for $1.2 billion jail construction bond funds provided via AB
900. The author contends allowing a county to offer the use of
jail beds as state reentry beds in lieu of stand-alone siting
helps the state and the county and should be awarded the same
funding preference.
According to the author, "Not only would AB 320 help more
counties receive AB 900 local jail construction funding, but
also it will help the state achieve its goal of providing up
to 6,000 new reentry beds. It also would reduce the state's
projected costs to operate and maintain new state reentry
AB 1768
Page 3
facilities."
2)Current law requires CDCR to give county jail construction
bond funding preference to counties that help the state in
siting reentry facilities of up to 500 beds and to counties
that help the state site mental health day treatment and
crisis care beds and/or provide a continuum of care for
parolees with mental health and substance abuse problems.
3)To date, numerous counties have been unable to offer sites to
CDCR for reentry facilities . The Corrections Standards
Authority (CSA) has recommended $617 million in jail
construction awards for 11 counties (for a 5,489 net gain in
jail beds) who have been able to offer verified reentry sites
to the state: San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Kern, Santa
Barbara, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Solano, Madera,
Calaveras, Amador, and San Benito.
Fourteen additional counties requested awards, but were unable
to provide the state a suitable reentry site, often due to
community opposition: Orange, Monterey, L.A., San Mateo,
Butte, Placer, Stanislaus, Merced, Yolo, Kings, Tuolumne,
Shasta, El Dorado, and Sutter.
4)AB 900 (Solorio, Statutes of 2007) authorized $6.2 billion in
lease-revenue bond financing for construction of 40,000 new
state prison beds and $1.2 billion for an estimated 13,000 new
county jail beds, phased-in over time and contingent upon a
series of construction and rehabilitation program
implementation benchmarks. The $1.2 billion for jail beds was
divided into phase I ($750 million) and phase II ($470
million). AB 900 required CDCR to enhance existing programs to
reduce recidivism and implement new ones, including substance
abuse treatment, mental health care and academic and
vocational services. The two-pronged approach was designed to
provide new prison beds, while establishing stronger
rehabilitation and reentry efforts.
AB 900 has stalled. No prison or jail beds have been
constructed.
5)Concerns/Suggested Amendments .
a) This bill counts on CDCR to negotiate a sound deal with
any county hoping to provide the state with reentry beds in
AB 1768
Page 4
exchange for county jail bond funds. The bill does not
require that jail bed proposed for use as state proposed
reentry beds be existing beds and it does not define a
long-term arrangement. While it is understandable that CDCR
and counties seeking jail bond financing wish to maintain
maximum flexibility, additional legislative direction may
be appropriate.
b) Since as many as 32 counties are under court-ordered or
self-imposed population caps, it is unlikely many counties
could provide existing beds for use as reentry facilities.
As this bill allows counties to propose the use of
prospective jail beds built with AB 900 funding, it
essentially provides state funds to build local beds that
would be leased back to the state. This arrangement raises
several issues:
i) If the state awards bond funds to build local beds
only after a county agrees to lease some portion of those
beds back to the state, could that arrangement be
considered a gift of state funds? And absent definition
regarding a long-term agreement, could a county
manipulate a lease arrangement to qualify for state
construction grants?
ii) Presumably the CSA would reject a county
construction proposal that overbuilds - based on the
required local needs assessment - in order to lease beds
back to the state. Hence it is not clear whether or how
this proposal would work as drafted.
iii) If this bill results in significant construction of
reentry beds, via the construct-and-lease-back
arrangement, how does this affect the $2.6 billion
authorized to construct 16,000 reentry beds in AB 900?
c) This bill applies only to phase II of the jail funding
component of AB 900 ($470 million), yet $133 million
remains available from phase I. Perhaps this bill should
also apply to remaining phase I funding, to provide
guidance to the CSA in the use of these funds,
authorization for which sunsets in 2017.
6)Virtually identical legislation was vetoed last year . The
AB 1768
Page 5
governor's veto message for AB 320 (Solorio) states in part:
"I am returning Assembly Bill 320 without my signature. This
measure would require the CDCR and the CSA, when providing
funds pursuant to AB 900, to give coequal funding preference
to counties that assist the state in either siting reentry
facilities or providing existing beds and program space in
county jails for use as reentry facilities. While I appreciate
the Legislature's efforts to provide local jail construction
funding, which could help the state achieve its goal of
providing up to 6,000 new reentry beds, I cannot approve this
measure because it fails to define what would constitute an
acceptable "long-term agreement" between the state and local
governments."
7)Support . The CA State Sheriffs Association contends this bill
will help state and local efforts to address the current
correctional capacity crisis on state and local levels. L.A.
and Orange Counties, which together comprise 30% of the
state's jail inmates and almost 40% of the state's prison
inmates, are particularly interested.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081