BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2102
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
Counsel: Milena Blake
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2102 (Hill) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
SUMMARY : Modifies the process by which the State Public Works
Board distributes funds for construction of local jail
facilities. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a county that has been awarded funds for the
construction of local jail facilities to return those funds by
August 1, 2013 if those funds have not been encumbered and the
following conditions are not met by June 1, 2013:
a) The county has established a jail planning unit and a
project development team;
b) The county has completed a jail needs assessment;
c) A function plan has been completed for the proposed
jail;
d) The jail site has been identified and purchased;
e) An environmental impact report has been completed; and,
f) The county board of supervisors has approved the jail
functional plans and scope of the jail.
2)Specifies that funds returned to the state through the above
procedure must be used to fund county jail facilities and must
be distributed pursuant to existing provisions, as specified.
3)Requires that a county that has met the above criteria, and
previously had been awarded funding, be given priority in
distributing these funds.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes the State Public Works Board to borrow funds for
AB 2102
Page 2
project costs related to prison construction, as specified.
(Government Code Section 15819.402.)
2)Authorizes the State Public Works Board to issue revenue
bonds, negotiable notes, or negotiable bond anticipation notes
to finance the acquisition, design, and construction of prison
facilities. (Government Code Section 15819.403.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This legislation
is necessary to free up money that was awarded in Phase 1 but
has not been returned and has gone unused. Other counties
have purchased land and are ready to begin construction on a
jail facility that will have an immediate benefit to the
state. 2017 is too long to wait for counties that were
awarded funds in 2008. AB 2102 creates a competitive process
where counties can compete for unused funds only if they meet
specified milestones.
"In 2007, the Legislature passed AB 900, which authorized $7.7
billion in lease-revenue bonds in order to relieve prison
overcrowding. Several counties were awarded money under Phase
1 of AB 900 but returned their funding due to burdensome
conditions attached to the funding, specifically the 500-bed
state reentry facility requirement. Other counties did not
return their funding and have been sitting on hundreds of
millions of unused Phase 1 dollars for years providing no
benefit to the state. Under current law, counties that held
onto their AB 900 awards have not been required to demonstrate
need or an available site until 2017, compared to other
counties who gave their money back so it could be used more
quickly under Phase 2 of AB 900. Phase 2 was created through
AB 94 and AB 111 last year which modified Phase 1 to address
the burdensome conditions and eliminated the re-entry bed
requirement. Unfortunately, counties who were awarded money
in Phase 1 but returned it in order to free-up money for other
counties, were not awarded money in Phase 2."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"In 2008 the County of San Mateo applied and won a $100
million award under Phase 1, AB 900 (state lease-revenue bonds
for reentry facilities). After discussions with CDCR, it was
AB 2102
Page 3
determined that our site would not accommodate the County's
jail-bed needs and a 500-bed state reentry facility. The
County offered to include a 125-bed state reentry facility as
part of the jail project but was rejected by CDCR.
"As a result, the County relinquished the $100 million award
to enable another county that was able to accommodate the
required 500-bed minimum. The counties that held onto their
AB 900 awards have not been required to demonstrate need or an
available site until 2017. This has meant hundreds of
millions of state bond funds are going unspent until 2017.
"Phase II: San Mateo County submitted a statement of interest
to apply for Phase II funding under the changes outlined in AB
94 and AB 111. With the elimination of the re-entry bed
requirement as a condition of funding and the fact that it had
met other critical planning milestones, the county believed it
was in a good position to receive an award. However, San
Mateo was not invited to apply for Phase II funding because of
the low number of state prisoner commitments. It seems the
county was punished for keeping low level offenders in the
county system for purpose of rehabilitation and treatment
rather than ship them off to state. This despite the fact
that the County also demonstrated both good faith in
relinquishing their Phase 1 early in the process and
completing significant project milestones to show readiness.
"The cost of the San Mateo County jail construction project is
$165 million. It will take 35 months to complete with a start
date of June 2012. This project is required to solve over
crowded conditions and create badly needed construction jobs
that will have a ripple effect in our economy. San Mateo
County's adult correctional facilities are severely
overcrowded with daily inmate populations that range up to 160
percent of rated capacity. Overcrowding has many consequences,
including putting at risk the maintaining of a safe and secure
facility, increased staffing costs, and reduced life
expectancy of the facility.
"After completing a comprehensive needs assessment and working
closely with the community, the Board of Supervisors acquired
4.85 acres of land in the Redwood City for the purpose of
constructing a new jail with close proximity to the Hall of
Justice.
AB 2102
Page 4
"Public Safety Realignment took effect October 2011, which
according to CDCR would eventually increase the average daily
population housed in San Mateo County jails by 241 inmates.
Yet, the realigned population is out pacing that estimate. In
just the first five months, the San Mateo County jail has
received 304 inmates under realignment.
"The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors is working with the
Sheriff to ensure the new jail facility will support model
reentry and gender-responsive programming to reduce rates of
recidivism. It will be built consistent with our
green-building ordinance to meet LEED certified ratings.
"On October 4, 2011, the Board approved the scope and size of
the jail project. A phased approach may be employed by
constructing a jail with 576 beds, which will include a 'warm
shell' for future growth. The inmate beds are designated as a
Type II facility for the main housing unit and Type IV for the
transitional facility. The transitional facility will include
88 non-secure beds to help increase programming opportunities,
successful community re-integration, and reduce recidivism.
It's anticipated that the facilities will be two separate
buildings with connectivity between them.
"After a competitive process, an architect and construction
management team has been retained. A negative environmental
declaration has already been approved. The County of San Mateo
applied and won a $100 million award under Phase 1, AB 900
(state lease-revenue bonds for reentry facilities). After
discussions with CDCR, it was determined that our site would
not accommodate the County's jail-bed needs and a 500-bed
state reentry facility. The County offered to include a
125-bed state reentry facility as part of the jail project but
was rejected by CDCR.
"As a result, the County relinquished the $100 million award
to enable another county that was able to accommodate the
required 500-bed minimum. Other counties that held onto their
AB 900 awards but have no required milestone to demonstrate
need and a site until 2017. That means hundreds of millions
of state bond funds are going unspent until 2017, when these
funds could be used now in our sluggish economy. San Mateo
County was not invited to apply for Phase II funding, yet the
County demonstrated both good faith and need; moreover, San
Mateo Count is ready to begin construction."
AB 2102
Page 5
3)Legislative Analyst's Office Report : The Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO) recently released a report titled, "2012-13
Budget: Refocusing CDCR After the 2011 Realignment." This
report included a discussion on the future construction of
prison beds.
"In 2007, the Legislature passed AB 900, in order to relieve the
significant prison overcrowding problem. Specifically, AB 900
authorized a total of $7.7 billion-$7.4 billion in
lease-revenue bonds and $300 million in General Fund
support-for a broad package of state prison and local jail
construction and rehabilitation initiatives, as follows:
a) $2.4 billion to construct infill beds intended to
replace so-called 'temporary' housing in gymnasiums, day
rooms, and other public spaces in prisons. (Infill beds are
housing units constructed on the grounds of existing
facilities.) Assembly Bill 900 did not specify the mix of
high- and low-security infill beds to be constructed.
b) $2.6 billion to construct 'reentry facilities' primarily
for inmates within one year of being released from custody.
c) $1.1 billion to construct inmate health care facilities.
d) $1.2 billion to help counties construct local jail
facilities.
e) $300 million to make various infrastructure improvements
at existing prisons.
"At this time, over $5 billion authorized in AB 900 has not
been spent. However, CDCR has developed an AB 900 Integrated
Strategy Plan that lists the projects it plans to complete in
the next few years with these funds, as well as the number and
type of housing beds (such as lower security or higher
security) that will be built. In addition to the funds
authorized in AB 900, the Legislature has also provided CDCR
with $135 million for other prison construction and renovation
projects. At this time, however, the department has not
provided a revised statewide prison construction plan for both
of the above funding sources that reflects the recent
realignment of lower-level offenders to counties. The
administration indicates that it is currently in the process
AB 2102
Page 6
of reevaluating its plans."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
San Mateo County, Board of Supervisors (Sponsor)
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Blake / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744