BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2102
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2102 (Hill) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill changes the process by which currently authorized
local jail bond funding is distributed. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a county that has been awarded funds for jail
construction 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 (EIR) has been completed.
f) The county board of supervisors has approved the jail
plans.
1)Creates a Phase III for county jail bond fund awards, using
returned awards, and specifies that funds returned to the
state pursuant to this measure be used to fund county jail
facilities and be distributed pursuant to existing provisions
(Government Code Chapter 3.2.1.).
2)Requires that a county that had been awarded funding under
Chapter 3.2.1 receive priority in receiving funds returned
pursuant to this measure.
AB 2102
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
No new state cost. The intent of this bill is to redirect some
amount of the $1.2 billion in existing county jail bond
authorization, potentially in the hundreds of millions of
dollars.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends the current jail construction
bond awards disadvantage counties - particularly San Mateo
County - that relinquished initial grant awards in the $774
million Phase I of the $1.2 billion lease revenue bond
authorization for local jail construction contained in AB 900
(2007) and did not receive funding in Phase II. The author
argues there are counties that received Phase I awards that
have not shown sufficient progress to warrant maintaining
those awards.
The intent of the author and sponsor, the San Mateo County Board
of Supervisors, is to create a new set of criteria that could
result in a reversal of bond grant awards, making reverted funds
available to counties that did not receive an award.
2)Current Phase I and II awards . All of the $1.2 billion in bond
authorization has been awarded. The following summary charts
are from the state Correctional Standards Authority (CSA).
CSA AB 900 Phase I Jail Construction Awards (November 2009)
---------------------------------------------
|County |Amount |Award |
| |Requested | |
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Large/Medium | | |
|Counties | | |
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|San Bernardino | $100,000,000|$100,000,0|
| | | 00|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|San Joaquin | $80,000,000|$80,000,00|
| | | 0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Kern | $100,000,000|$100,000,0|
| | | 00|
AB 2102
Page 3
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Orange | $100,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Santa Barbara | $56,295,000|$56,295,00|
| | | 0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|San Diego | $100,000,000|$100,000,0|
| | | 00|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Monterey | $80,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Los Angeles | $100,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|San Luis Obispo | $25,125,630|$25,125,63|
| | | 0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|San Mateo | $100,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Butte | $30,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Placer | $9,389,606| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Stanislaus | $39,790,500| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Merced | $27,846,040| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Solano* | $61,545,000|$61,545,00|
| | | 0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Subtotal | $1,0009,991,776|$522,965,6|
| | | 30|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Small Counties | | |
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Yolo | $30,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Kings | $30,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Madera | $30,000,000|$30,000,00|
| | | 0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Calaveras | $26,387,591|$26,387,59|
| | | 1|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Tuolumne | $30,000,000| $0|
AB 2102
Page 4
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Shasta | $24,999,187| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Amador | $22,712,000|$22,712,00|
| | | 0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|El Dorado | $20,000,000| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|San Benito | $15,053,000|$15,053,00|
| | | 0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Sutter | $5,990,288| $0|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Subtotal | $23,142,0666|$94,152,59|
| | | 1|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Total | $1,245,133,842|$617,118,2|
| | | 21|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
| | | |
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Max Funding | |$750,000,0|
| | | 00|
|-----------------+----------------+----------|
|Remaining | |$132,881,7|
| | |79 |
---------------------------------------------
CSA AB 900 Phase II Jail Construction Awards (March 2012)
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | County |Amount |Award |
| | |Requested | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
|Large |Los Angeles | $100,000,000| $100,000,000|
|Counties | | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Riverside | $100,000,000| $100,000,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Orange | $100,000,000| $100,000,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
AB 2102
Page 5
| |Sacramento | $100,000,000| |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Subtotal - | $400,000,000| |
| |Large | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
|Medium |Stanislaus | $80,000,000| $80,000,000|
|Counties | | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Tulare | $60,000,000| $60,000,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Santa Barbara | $80,000,000| $60,000,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Monterey | $80,000,000| |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Yolo | $42,225,000| |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Sonoma | $43,000,000| |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Placer | $29,543,863| |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Subtotal-Medium | $414,768,863| |
| | | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
|Small |Kings | $33,000,000| $33,000,000|
|Counties | | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Shasta | $33,000,000| $33,000,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Sutter | $10,255,000| $10,255,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Madera | $3,000,000| $3,000,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Imperial | $33,000,000| $23,626,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Siskiyou | $27,778,940| |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Tuolumne | $33,000,000| |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
| |Subtotal-Small | $173,033,940| $602,881,000|
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
|Relinquishing | | | |
|Preference | | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
|Large County |Kern | $100,000,000| Shift from |
| | | | Phase I|
AB 2102
Page 6
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
|Small County |San Benito | $15,053,000| Shift from |
| | | |Phase I |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-------------|
|Total | | $1,102,855,803| |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
3)San Mateo's complaint . San Mateo was awarded $100 million (the
maximum grant) in 2008 for a $165 million 506-bed jail in
Redwood City. The county board approved the project; a
negative declaration (not an EIR) was approved; an architect
and construction management team were retained. Ultimately,
however, the state determined the site could not accommodate
the jail and a 500-bed state re-entry facility, which was
required as part of every county proposal at that time.
As a result, San Mateo relinquished the grant.
San Mateo then submitted a statement of interest regarding
Phase II jail bond funding. Because of difficulty siting state
re-entry facilities, Phase II was eventually amended to delete
the required re-entry facility as part of a county's
application, and San Mateo thought it was in good shape for a
Phase II award. Apparently due to a relatively low commitment
rate to state prison, however, the county did not receive a
Phase II award. (Phase II applications considered a county's
state prison commitment rate as part of the application
process.)
The county contends it was essentially punished for having a
relatively low state prison commitment rate, even when the
county had completed significant project milestones. San Mateo
further contends other counties are sitting on bond awards
with little post-award progress.
Moreover, San Mateo notes that of the applying counties that
did not qualify for a Phase I award (Orange, Kern, Santa
Barbara, and San Benito), only San Mateo did not receive a
Phase II award.
4)Several counties that applied for grants were also
unsuccessful , including Sacramento, Monterey, Yolo, Sonoma,
Placer, Siskiyou and Tuolumne, Placer, Butte, Stanislaus,
Merced, Kings, Shasta, El Dorado, and Sutter.
AB 2102
Page 7
In addition, CSA notes it has received funding inquiries from
Santa Clara, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Ventura and
Fresno Counties.
5)The proposed San Mateo fix raises several issues .
a) Requiring funds to be encumbered by June 1, 2013 could
jeopardize grants awarded to most, if not all counties .
According to CSA, only San Bernardino, Madera and Calaveras
Counties have received Pooled Money Investment Board (PMIB)
loan approval (Solano County is expected to receive PMIB
approval soon), which means the rest of the Phase I awards,
and potentially all of the Phase II awards could revert if
progress stalls for various reasons and loans are not
approved by June 1, 2013.
b) Funded counties already comply with the conditions
proposed in this bill. According to CSA, all funded
counties already comply with (a) establishing a jail
planning unit and development team; (b) completing a jail
needs assessment; (c) board of supervisors approval; (d)
identifying and purchasing a jail site. (Moreover, not
every county needs to purchase a jail site.)
In addition, not every county/project requires an EIR; for
example, San Mateo County completed a negative declaration
in lieu of an EIR.
Regarding the condition for a "functional plan" for a jail,
it is not clear what this means.
c) The bill does not amend the proper Government Code
sites , referencing the prison construction chapter rather
than county jail construction chapter, and does not
differentiate between Phase I and II.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081