BILL ANALYSIS
SB 128
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2000
Chief Counsel: Bruce E. Chan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Carl Washington, Chair
SB 128 (Polanco) - As Amended: June 29, 2000
SUMMARY : Provides that the Department of Corrections (CDC)
shall transfer ownership of San Quentin State Prison by January
1, 2002. Specifically, this bill :
1)State that the Legislature finds and declares that San Quentin
State Prison, built in 1852, is no longer cost-effective to
maintain and operate. Hundreds of millions of dollars have
been spent to retrofit the prison and upgrade its
infrastructure to maintain minimal structural integrity.
2)Provides that the CDC shall transfer ownership of the property
and all facilities of San Quentin State Prison to the
Department of General Services (DGS) no later than January 1,
2002. The property, including all facilities, is declared to
be surplus land pursuant to Government Code Section 11011.
3)Requires DGS to establish a task force of state and local
representatives to recommend the appropriate use and
disposition of the property. The task force shall develop a
land use master plan for consideration by DGS.
4)Requires CDC to develop a proposal for the transfer of inmates
housed in San Quentin by June 30, 2001 pursuant to specified
criteria. No property at San Quentin may be used to house
inmates, no inmate may be transferred to any facility
operating at or above 160% of design capacity, and any new
capacity deemed necessary to meet the criteria in this measure
must be operated at least 10% below the average state cost of
incarceration.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the PWB may finance prison construction using
lease-purchase arrangements by the issuance of bonds and may
authorize any additional amounts to pay the costs of
SB 128
Page 2
financing, including the interest accrued during construction
of the project and a reasonable reserve, with a total limit of
$650 million. (Government Code Section 15819.3)
2)Authorizes the CDC to enter into a lease with the BPW for
prison facilities. (Government Code Section 15819.1)
3)Provides for additional prisons through the enactment of new
Government Code sections for each additional prison.
(Government Code Section 15819 et seq.)
4)Provides that the judgement of death shall be executed within
the walls of the California State Prison at San Quentin.
(Penal Code Section 3603.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "As the Chair of
both the Joint Legislative Committee on Prison Construction
and Operations (JLCPCO) and the Senate Budget & Fiscal Review
Subcommittee with fiscal oversight on the state's prison
system, I refuse to continue to pour unlimited dollars down
the drain to keep an outdated and inefficiently operated state
prison. This is not only a waste of precious taxpayer
dollars, it also places staff and inmates in an unsafe
environment."
2)The 2000 Budget: The current budget makes $250,000 available
to the DGS to prepare a report and analysis of the possible
closure of the California State Prison at San Quentin,
including the disposition of the real property. The analysis
shall be prepared with the participation of the County of
Marin with respect to planning and land use issues. DGS shall
coordinate with CDC to prepare an analysis of the relocation
of the inmates and programs served at the institution. DGS
shall submit its report to the Legislature no later than June
30, 2001.
3)Background : According to information submitted by the author,
California State Prison, San Quentin, established in July
1852, is California's oldest prison. With the construction of
Corcoran and Pelican Bay State Prison, San Quentin is
primarily a reception center (processing between 2,000 and
SB 128
Page 3
2,600 inmates a month) or minimum-low medium security (Level
II) inmate general population housing (roughly 2,000 beds).
Additionally, San Quentin houses condemned male felons
(approximately 500 inmates).
With an annual budget of more than $130 million, San Quentin is
the most costly and inefficient reception center and
minimum-low medium security prison. In addition, with the
approval of several new capital outlay projects in the 2000-01
budget, San Quentin will now spend roughly $50 million more on
additional projects to improve or expand existing facilities.
The issue of closing San Quentin has been previously addressed
by the Legislature. Chapter 789, Statutes of 1978, provided
the CDC with $7.6 million from the General Fund for
preliminary planning for an additional maximum-security (Level
IV) facility or facilities and "the razing of the California
State Prison at San Quentin and possibly the California State
Prison at Folsom." Chapter 1122, Statues of 1980, amended the
previous chapter to not only raze San Quentin and possibly
Folsom State Prison, but also directed the CDC to: (1)
utilize community correctional programs (primarily Level I and
II) to house inmates; (2) build two maximum security (Level
IV) facilities on the existing grounds at California
Correctional Institution (Tehachapi) to replace the maximum
security (Level IV) housing at San Quentin which shall be
razed within one-year of completion and activation of the
replacement institutions; and (3) house each inmate at the
lowest custody level consistent with his or her
classification.
The problem of prison overcrowding has been particularly acute
at San Quentin. Two major court orders were issued against
the CDC. In 1983, among other mandates, the federal district
court prohibited involuntary double-celling of general
population inmates at San Quentin. In 1984, the court ordered
limited double-celling in segregated housing units at San
Quentin as well as at Folsom State Prison, the Correctional
Training Facility (Soledad), and Deuel Vocational Institution
(Tracy). As a result of court-ordered changes, there have
been substantial capital outlay project costs. SB 1306,
Chapter 1121, Statutes of 1984, as amended by SB 50, Chapter
1133, Statutes of 1984, authorized expenditures of $32.4
million, with the majority of the funds coming out of the
Special Account for Capital Outlay. In 1996, a $19.5 million
SB 128
Page 4
construction project was completed to add modular structures
to house minimum-low medium security inmates and to construct
five new 100-bed, minimum-security dorms.
Similar to the repairs mandated by court order, the Budget Act
of 2000 authorized several projects to once again extend the
life of San Quentin. The budget authorized roughly $12 million
begin projects to retrofit the infirmary, kitchen, dining, and
processing buildings. The budget also reappropriated funds for
working drawings for Phase II of a new correctional treatment
center to be built in the near future. When completed, the
projects will total more than $50 million. The Legislature
has also authorized additional staff ($413,000 and 9.2
positions) at San Quentin to deal with the rising violence
from condemned inmates towards staff. The Budget Act of 2000,
like Chapter 789, Statutes of 1978, and Chapter 1122, Statues
of 1980, once again, for the third time, directs the study of
closing San Quentin. Unlike the $7.6 million first authorized
in 1978, the budget includes $250,000 for this study to be
completed by DGS.
4)Related Legislation: AB 2787 (Leonard) authorized CDC to
build a separate prison designed to incarcerate prisoners with
special needs due to age or HIV status and to sell San Quentin
state prison. The hearing on AB 2787 was cancelled at the
request of the author.
5)Statement In Opposition:
a)The California Correctional Peace Officers Association
states, "While we agree in concept that something needs to
happen concerning San Quentin, this measure ignores the
fact that hundreds of employees will be displaced and that
there are no provisions in this bill to consider their
future. Additionally, the most recent amendments seek to
prevent the inmates at the prison currently from being sent
to an existing state facility. It appears that the
language is designed to have the inmates sent to a private
prison. Our fundamental belief is that secure
incarceration must be performed by sworn public officers.
This bill's '10%' savings mandate (a traditional claim of
prison privateers trying to get a government contract) has
proven to be a failure throughout the country. . . .
Privatization of prisons has been hotly debated in
California for the past few years. However, all attempts
SB 128
Page 5
to expand the privateers' profits at the expense of the
California taxpayers have failed. Prison privatization has
proven to be a failed experiment throughout the country.
Corrections primary goal is public safety. If prisons are
run 'on the cheap' and a profit motive is injected into
prison operations, the health and safety of the public, the
prison staff, and even that of the inmates is jeopardized."
b)The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice states, "Our
primary concern is with the potential relocation of death
row inmates. As you know, capital appeals are lengthy and
expensive. The universe of attorneys who can and will
accept capital appeals is extremely small. It often takes
years to find counsel. Moving death row out of its current
geographical area will exacerbate the problem, further
lengthening the time and expense of the appellate process?.
Motions, petitions and applications must be filed with the
California Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, both of which are located in San Francisco. It
makes sense to keep death row near the lawyers who
represent the inmates and the judicial entities that must
ultimately rule on last-minute requests.
"In addition, the State of California recently spent millions
of dollars developing, among other things, the Habeas
Corpus Resource Center (located in San Francisco). The
office of the State Public Defender employs a substantial
number of attorneys in San Francisco. Most capital
appellate lawyers are court-appointed, which means the
taxpayers pay their bills. Moving death row will increase
governmental agency expenses."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Bruce E. Chan / PUB. S. / (916)
SB 128
Page 6
319-3744