Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety, Monday, March 2, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Caitlin O'Neil with the legislative analyst office. We withhold recommendation on the population related budget adjustments given that they'll be updated at the mayor revision. However, there are two findings, from our analysis of the estimates that were included in the governor's budget that we would, present just for the legislature's awareness. The first is that the proposition 36 estimates on the prison population may be slightly low, and that's because, as miss Jefferson indicated, CDCR, as they traditionally, do for their population projections, impose a June 30 cutoff date for, data that goes into the projections that form the basis of the governor's budget. So that meant they meant they had about six months of implementation of prop 36 in their data, And they looked at actual admissions to identify the ones that were admitted to prison because of prop 36 and then assumed that that same number of people would continue to be admitted going forward.
In other words, their methodology assumes that the admission rate for prop 36 for the first six months of implementation would continue or would remain flat. However, because we now have an additional six months or so of data, we're able to look at what we, more recent trends. And at least for two components of Prop 36 for which data was available for the full year of implementation, we see that admissions did ramp up over the course of the year. In other words, admissions in the second half of the year were higher than the first, which would suggest that the administration's methodology would lead towards some underestimation. The second, kind of general assessment for awareness is, around the projection of the entire prison population, and that is that, again, the administration uses data up through June 30.
When we're doing our analysis, we have an additional six months of actual data, and we can see that the administration's projections were were trending or the actual prison population was trending about 1% higher than the administration projected in the first half of this year. And so or this this fiscal year. In other words, the fall. So that's consistent with the possibility that the prop 36 impact on the prison population is slightly underestimated, but it could be other factors at play. For example, a couple of large counties did have new district attorneys take office.
It's possible they have been instituted new practices that are causing their staff to seek prison to be more likely or to seek prison sentences more often that, rather, which could impact the prison population and maybe not quite yet be picked up in CDCR's methodology. So, again, we will be looking at the revised numbers at the May revision.
Speaker 4
Good afternoon. Kyle Gaiman, Department of Finance. Just to note that on proposition 36, we agree that it's still developing methodology. It's somewhat uncertain as it was put in place only in November 2024, so we'll continue to monitor that with CDCR as we move to May revision. And no further comments.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, mister chair. Just one sort of broader question, and I suppose this is best for, miss Jefferson. In your estimation, what are the factors that are contributing to reductions in our state prison population? I know I'm asking you to speculate a little bit, but nonetheless, even though those projections are a little bit we're still trying to grapple with how accurate they are, we're seeing the prison population decline even with the passage of Prop 36. What are the contributing factors?
Speaker 2
I I would say that, thank you for your question. And and I think the main thing is that we're seeing lower court commitments at just in general. After, COVID, I would say around 2022, 2023, the projection or the actual, court commitments data just started to just continue decreasing. But as Caitlin kind of mentioned, it it seems to be changing in July through December 2025. And so we're monitoring that, and we're keeping an eye on it to see how that impacts our projections in the May revision.
If if I could respond to just one of the comments that, LAO made regarding our Prop 36, assumed rate, it's not that it was remaining constant. We use what's called a logarithmic statistical model to to project prop 36 impact. And that model actually incorporates fast growth in the earlier part of the projection followed by a slowing growth or stabilization. And this model fits our situation right now where we have a lot that is still unknown. And so, what we do know, we we have an understanding that there is going to be an implementation period characterized by fast growth that will likely be followed by a leveling off or stabilization in the out years.
But, again, we are already working to update and make adjustments to our May revision projections to incorporate an additional six months of data, which as, as the LAO has reported, is showing an increase a greater increase over what we saw in the first six months.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you so much. And, certainly, the information on on prop 36. And we're gonna be looking to see another update on prop 36 emissions in the future, and you'll be able to bring that information back to this committee. But I do have a question on the types of of prop 36 crimes that you're seeing, that are ending up in state prison.
Can you elaborate a little bit more on those? I know you mentioned the nine fifty and some other areas there.
Speaker 2
Yeah. So let me see here if I could find that. The most the primary group of admissions are for those eleven three ninety five health and safety eleven three ninety five and the penal code six six six point one. About 10 to 15% are falling under, like, the amended statutes. Mhmm.
Right? And then we have just a few at least in the first six months, there were less than a 100 cases that, fell under what we were bucketing as admissions with an extended length of stay, so, like, enhancements, or where there is a prop 36 offense, but it wasn't, like, the main part of this the sentencing component. So I I think that's still pretty early given that it was only from the first six months, but, most of the admissions that we are counting are the new statutes created by prop 36.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that. Because you you mentioned that there's an extension of a thousand days based on on prop 36. So I was trying to get to which which crimes are those extensions.
Speaker 2
I can give you that. So those are mostly for enhancements to the controlling term, so prop 36 enhancements, and they are, let's see here. We got penal code 12,022, 12,022.6, 12,022.65, 12,022.7, and then health and safety 11,370.4. Those are the enhancements that, with the collaboration of our office of legal affairs that we, work counting as a qualified prop 36 enhancements.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you for that. And if you could provide a a summary Sure. To this, committee, that would be great.
Speaker 1
Any other questions on issue one? Thank you so much. As we move now to issue two
Speaker 1
Lump sum payments. Cynthia Mendonza, deputy director, office of fiscal service, CDCR. Caitlin O'Neil, LAO's office. Kyle Gaiman, department of finance. Anthony Franzola, department of finance.
And Cynthia, two times here. So we'll start with the deputy director.
Speaker 6
Perfect. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. Again, my name is Cynthia Mendonza. The department requests 91,000,000 ongoing for correctional officers and nursing staff separating from state employment and requiring payment for unused leave credits. We call this the lump sum payments.
Historically, these payments were funded through salary savings from vacant positions, but reductions in position authority and operational necessity of posted positions, including BU's six peace officers and nurses, mean there are fewer vacancies available, which limits the the use of those salary savings for the unused leave. Without dedicated funding, the department would have to divert, funds from other areas should salary savings be insufficient, potentially impacting public safety and inmate, health services. With that, the department is happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank
Speaker 3
Thank you. I'm gonna start with some very brief background on the on, kind of how we got to this place where that the underlying reason why this proposal has come forward, then discuss our assessment recommendations on the proposal, and then our assessment recommendations on the underlying issue. So, basically, the state across all departments, not just CDCR, budgets assuming all authorized positions are filled. But, of course, in reality, of trend, turn employee turnover and whatnot, some positions are inevitably vacant, which means departments have some extra money in their budget associated with these vacant positions. That's often referred to as salary savings.
Departments are expected to pay for certain costs using salary savings. One example of these costs are these lump sum payments for leave cash outs. There are costs that we know are gonna happen. It's not something the state has control over, but they're also not formally budgeted, and they're just expected to use these salary savings. And this is not a CDCR specific issue.
It's a general kind of feature of the way the state budgets. However, what is relatively unique for CDCR is that in recent conditions, most most notably prison capacity reductions have resulted in the state's, in CDCR's number of vacant positions declining. And that's because when prisons are closed, not only are the vacant positions and associated dollars at that prison eliminated from the budget, but also staff at that prison have the chance to fill vacant positions at other prisons, which puts overall downward pressure on vacant positions and associated dollars. CDC also had $14,000,000 swept from its budget as a part of the statewide vacancy sweep. So what this means is that CDCR's budget has a structural shortfall or it appears to.
In other words, the amount of dollars has gone down faster than the actual cost that those dollars have historically been used to pay for. So moving on to kind of our assessment on this specific proposal before you, which is $91,000,000 ongoing to pay for these lump sum payment payments that were historically funded using vacancy savings. And we find that in the near term, it is reasonable, because the department has to pay these costs. The funding that it's used historically to pay for these costs is no longer available. However, it's not clear that this condition is an ongoing condition, because once the state stops closing facilities in rapid succession and kind of reaches a new normal in terms of prison capacity, it's possible that the vacancy rate will return to something closer to historical levels, which would mean that CDCR could potentially again have the capacity in its budget to absorb these types of savings like the lump or these types of costs like the lump sum payments that we're talking about right now.
So we recommend approving the funding on a limited term basis and then requiring the department to report certain data toward the end of that limited term period in order to inform legislative deliberations when it comes time to consider whether additional money is needed for this purpose going forward. And then moving to our comments and recommendations finally on the kind of underlying issue, the structural shortfall, we find that it is concerning for two reasons. The first is that it limits budget transparency. And so one of the ways departments respond to shortfalls in their budget is by, either delaying or canceling activities they would they were otherwise authorized to do. And that could be as simple as, you know, not, you know, limiting travel or limiting overtime, but it could also be some some activity that the legislate that is a legislative priority.
And these, are decisions that are typically made internally, and so the legislature wouldn't necessarily be aware of them. And then the second concern is that the department could still overrun its budget, and it did, in fact, do that in 2425 when it came forward needing an additional $358,000,000. And at the end of the fiscal year, the legislature has little choice but to approve it. And so that, given this fiscal condition, would come at the expense of other general fund priorities. So we recommend the legislature exercise oversight by, asking the department to report in budget hearings on what steps it's either taking in the current year to shrink its, shortfall.
In other words, how is it making room in its budget, to pay its bills, as well as how is it planning to make room in its budget in the budget year to free up money, as well as what the programmatic implicate implications of those changes would be, the and the associated estimated savings. We also recommend having the department report on the size of the shortfall in their estimation, the overall shortfall, as well as what those unbudgeted costs, what what unbudgeted costs currently make up that shortfall.
Speaker 4
Kyle Bieman, Department of Finance. Thank you to the LEO for the acknowledgment of these costs, and we wanted to acknowledge some concerns as well about the limited term approach. Lump sum payments, as noted, are an ongoing legally required structural cost, which departments typically absorb via salary savings. And these salary savings, given vacancy rates, do fluctuate as the LAO notes, especially for a department like CDCR given its size and the nature of its twenty four hour security operations. The vacancy rates can be influenced by, the rate of prison admissions, the composition of them, broader state cost control efforts, like the vacancy reductions, as well as efforts made to streamline CDCR's operations and footprint, like the prison and facility closures we have seen.
Given these, though, none of those reduce the leave liabilities commensurately. Leave liabilities are governed by CalHR and bargaining agreements, and CDCR is required to adhere to them. So using salary savings, given that they're fluctuating, they are a less stable fund source for these ongoing mandatory costs, and we think that providing ongoing funding as opposed to this limited term approach gives more certainty to the department and approves its ability to adapt to declining populations and plan its budget long term. And lastly, I'd like to note that in the JLBC's letter last June, in response to the CDCR deficiency, they specifically asked the administration to address the lump sum payments issue. They wrote that given the likely persistence of these deficits, it's imperative that the administration act swiftly and transparently to align CDCR's actual costs with its budget.
So we see this as a rightsizing exercise for them to get the structural funding in alignment with their actual costs, and that's why we've proposed ongoing funding for it. And I'll turn over to my colleague to address, other comments.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, chair Ramos and members of the subcommittee. Anthony Franzoid, Department of Finance. Just to speak quickly, to the LAO's comments on, CDCR's, structural budget issues. As you may recall, the 2025 Budget Act, included a onetime appropriation for CDCR to enter into a contract with the Boston Consulting Group to look at CDCR's operations to see what we've done more efficiently. That work has been ongoing this fiscal year and is wrapping up with CDCR.
It also includes the Department of Health Care Services in that contract. But specific to CDCR, BCG is looking at things like contract management and streamlining the department's use of overtime and, excuse me, headquarters kind of efficiencies in terms of staffing, just to name a few things. So I just wanna acknowledge that the department and the administration are aware of structural budget issues, and I've been working consistently throughout this year, to bring those kind of efficiencies, to fruition. So, again, the work is wrapping up, and more information will be forthcoming at the mayor revision on the steps that CVC and the administration, are gonna take to address that.
Speaker 8
Just real quickly, the this vacancy savings seems almost like it might be utilized as a slush fund for things that we might not approve of. That's what it appears like to me. Just a comment.
Speaker 5
You very much, mister chair. Thank you all for the presentation. I wanna start by talking about the lump sum payments, and then I'll I have a few comments on the broader structural picture. I guess first question, is to you. Is it miss Mendonza?
Speaker 5
Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Does CDCR have a policy that allows employees to receive vacation payouts before retirement, like, while they're active employees?
Speaker 6
So there is a process called a leave buyback that does occur, if we have, additional funds to pay for it. So the last time it occurred was in 2023 when we paid out, I believe, somewhere around 19,000,000, and prior to that was 2021 when we paid out 45,000,000. And, usually, it's something we'll go out to the department and will specify you can buy one week or two weeks of leave credits.
Speaker 5
Okay. And and and as recollection serves, that's a voluntary program. Right? Employees don't have to do it. It's just it's something it's an election that they can make.
Are there any requirements at CDCR, you know, where you can't accrue a certain amount of hours before you're required to take some time off? Does anything like that exist?
Speaker 6
Nothing like that exists, and I do believe that would have to be bargained.
Speaker 5
Okay. The reason I'm asking is because, obviously, in my prior career working at DOJ, we had, approaches like that to help reduce that overhead and that liability. So I guess my question is, what is CDCR doing to look at other state agencies? Because you're all dealing with this issue to some degree. I think the the problem is particularly noticeable with CDCR as one of our largest entities.
But what are you doing to look at other cost savings measures that maybe other departments have engaged?
Speaker 6
That's a good question. And I'm not sure to what extent we've reached out. I'll have to get back to you on that. But we do employ the leave reduction plans and encourage our management to encourage staff to take those the time off that they've accrued. I mean, they've they've earned it.
It's their time off. And we definitely wanna promote that sort of use of the time and promotion of wellness in the department. It's to my knowledge, we cannot enforce it. We can't like, even if they have a leave reduction plan, should operational need require their participation in their work, then they need to be there. And that's primarily like, with our posted positions, that's kind of where things become more difficult, which is why we're coming forward.
But just the the posted positions for this reduction for this ask, not a reduction.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. Mhmm. The other issue I just wanted to mention was more broadly the the the budgetary picture with CDCR. I wanted to just mention I appreciate the administration's perspective about sort of the pros and cons of taking a more limited term approach and a longer term approach. But at least from this particular committee member's viewpoint, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the LAO.
While I understand the concerns that DOF has raised, I I do believe that we have an obligation to exercise great to exercise greater oversight over CDCR, and I don't wanna abdicate, but that responsibility. I would just mention that I understand historically we have used vacancy savings to help fund these costs in addition to being variable, which is a concern. I also don't think it has the appropriate level of transparency that I, as a taxpaying citizen, want to see. The point I'm bringing up is that in addition to the LAO's recommendations about requiring the department to, to report back, I would also personally be supportive of requiring the department to revert any savings back. And if they want to have another expenditure, they go through the budget, budget change proposal process.
That's something that I would personally support so we have greater accountability in this process. And I wanna close with saying I'm not suggesting that there's any ill intent by anyone in all of this, but I think the greatest power of the legislature is that of oversight and ensuring that every dollar is spent efficiently. And I think that there's more work that we can do as legislators on that front. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, for your comments. We do have a couple comments ourselves. With the lump sum payment, we have, like, $91,000,000 that we're talking about. Do you have an average of what would go out to individuals, that are partaking in that? BU's six members, I guess.
Speaker 6
Do I have a, I do have the amount per if we were to average it across this all staff members, all 58,000 staff members is roughly they have about four hundred and sixty one hours on average and on the books for unused leave. It varies, so I would have to get back to you to get more deep like, detail for just the correctional officers.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Certainly, towards the ones that we're we're discussing now that would be moving forward in that lump sum payment, getting the average on that itself. And then, to CalHR plan and Department of Finance, you you you mentioned, trying to get ahead of these and and trying to make sure that that the budget wise, it's all there. Are you referring to negotiations, within the the bargaining units themselves? So when that's negotiated out, you would know exactly, what we're talking about?
Speaker 4
Kyle Gaiman, Department of Finance. Not necessarily specific to negotiation negotiations, just more so that CDCR has a specific pot of money to use for this, and they know that moving forward, and it's not as their vacancy rates continue to to fluctuate and that amount that they have from savings is less, they'd be able to plan a little bit better knowing the leave liabilities that they have. And they have sort of an average they know they need to spend every year. So it's more for consistency's sake, not so much for the bargaining units themselves.
Speaker 1
But we know this has been an ongoing area of buyout and and lump sum money coming forward. So maybe it's a chance to get ahead of this to be more able to present to this body here today. And certainly, wanna talk a little bit more about the May revise. Talked about some more information coming to us in the May revise. Is there an opportunity to get some of that information prior to the May revise so we could evaluate it and and look at it on some of the recommendations coming back?
Speaker 1
Definitely. Because when we go back to May revise, we see it. Right? It's the budget process. May revise comes in, and we have a limited amount of time to digest a lot of that.
So the BCG recommendations, if we could get those sooner so we could actually start to evaluate those recommendations within this body.
Speaker 6
Chairperson, I have I did find one piece of information about the number of dollars or hours that we have. So, overall, we have twenty one point three million hours accrued for leave amongst our staff, and about half of that is for the b u six population. So we're looking at ten and a half million hours.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Yes. Any further questions from the dice? Thank you so much. As now we move to issue three, Statewide correctional video surveillance, completion, and statewide fire alarm replacements and fire watch budget proposals.
Sarah Larson, director division of facility planning, construction, and management, CDCR. Cynthia Mendonza, deputy director, office of fiscal service, CDCR. Michael Chek Chek, chief un unified communications and collaboration and contraband division of enterprise information services. Caitlin O'Neil, legislative now analyst office. Patrick Plant, department of finance.
Josh Whitmerhouse, department of finance. Anthony Franzua, Department of Finance. And we will start with Sarah Larson, Director.
Speaker 6
Just for clarification, will it be AVSS and Firewatch together since I do an over? Okay. Department, requests 10,000,000 in 2627 to implement the last two video surveillance systems at two prisons, CTF and, CMC. And that CTF is correctional training facility, and CMC is the California Men's Colony. Market driven cost increases have rendered existing funding insufficient to implement and complete all remaining institutions within the current budget window.
And so we are, therefore, requesting the 10,000,000. For FireWatch, we're requesting 15,200,000 one time for support of costs related to fire watch coverage at various institutions with deficient fire alarm systems. The department also requests a one year extension to the reversion period for twenty twenty one, twenty two fire alarm replacement and fire suppression repair reappropriation proposal, and this will allow sufficient time to finalize projects at two prisons, Mule Creek State Prison and RJD. These are expected to reach completion in 2026, but the finalizing the projects requires a little bit additional time to allow for invoices to be received and paid. And then this proposal also requests a one year reappropriation for a previously approved project received in the twenty five point six statewide fire alarm replacements and fire watch proposal.
$14.01 14,100,000.0 from 2526 to 2627 to address project startup delays and keep, statewide fire alarm replacement projects fully funded. With that, we welcome questions.
Speaker 3
We recommend approving the proposal related to FireWatch given that it's a one time proposal and it's a critical health life safety issue that's represents an unavoidable cost, really. And then as noted in your agenda, we do have a recommendation related to the audio video surveillance system, but it will be discussed at a later hearing. So I'll hold on that.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Department of finance? Patrick Plant, Department of Finance. No comments, but available questions. Thank you so much.
Any questions, comments from the dais, mister vice chair?
Speaker 8
I just have a question. I'm kinda confused by this fire watch budget. It seems pretty primitive. Some dude just walk around waiting to see if maybe there's a threat, maybe not. It seems very primitive to me.
Is that a real thing?
Speaker 6
Oh, yes. It was recommended by the state fire marshal given our, systems were failing.
Speaker 6
Yes. It is. CDCR is looking at ways to reduce the cost by using different staff, but that is in pilot stage right now. It would be staff who are not correctional officers at certain times of the day.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, mister chair. I just had one question. So we all know that our state prison system, we have a lot of institutions that are aging in place. Been a while since we constructed, the vast majority of the last ones. I guess the question would be, as you're looking at all of the capital capital needs, maintenance investments that need to be made, how does the department actually go about prioritizing what needs to happen now versus what can be deferred?
And then how do you similarly prioritize metting out long term fixes versus the shorter term fixes like FireWatch? Just if you could walk me through that thought process, that'd be helpful.
Speaker 9
Yeah. That's a a really excellent and comprehensive question because, as you know, the average age of our institutions is 51 years. You know, some of them are 175 years old. So we are, for many of our institutions, reaching the end of their useful life. We have been trying to undertake an effort to do comprehensive look at our infrastructure needs and how we prioritize and kind of plan them out because, for example, when it comes to fire watches and fire alarm replacement is a great example, We have probably over $1,000,000,000 worth of fire alarm replacement and repair that needs to happen at our institutions statewide.
So and that's, you know, current costs not escalated over the construction cost increase time horizon. So when you're looking at those expenses, you wanna make sure that you're we, I should say, want to make sure that we're spending our money in a way that's effective. We don't wanna invest in a fire alarm system in a building that has a failing roof and then the failing roof affects the fire alarm system. So we are trying to do in the department is take a comprehensive look at our infrastructure, what the needs are across the system, and how we can plan out investment in that infrastructure, but that's a pretty significant undertaking. So that's why we're coming forward with a proposal like FireWatch to say, look, we recognize the infrastructure needs out there.
We wanna make sure that we're spending the money in a way that's most cost effective. This is our interim solution as we're developing that plan and coming up with a more strategic approach statewide for fire alarms, but also frankly for lots of our other infrastructure as well when it comes to roofs and ducting and wells and all of those pieces.
Speaker 5
Just wanted to thank you for the explanation, and I just state the obvious to my colleagues. But the if I'm not mistaken, I think the most recent facility constructed was Kern Valley State Prison. I think that opened in, like, 2005. So even the most recent institutions, 21 years old, a lot of them are much older. So I'm just highlighting the point that what we're talking about today is probably only going to be more pressing in the years ahead as our facilities age.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. And you mentioned there's interim solution. So do we we have an estimate on on how long or how soon we could actually see some solutions?
Speaker 9
So we have the fire alarm projects that are mentioned as the reappropriation. Overall, we have in progress let's see. One, two, three, four. About six fire alarm projects in progress right now using a combination of funds including the reappropriated funds that are mentioned here. But when it comes to that bigger picture planning, I think what we're trying to figure out is what does that replacement schedule look like and how do we do it in a way that's cost effective given the other infrastructure needs that we have.
But the cost is significant, so we wanna make sure that when we're making the ask, we're making it in a way that's sensible.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that. We'll be looking out forward to seeing some of those solutions when they come forward. Thank you so much. Any other questions, comments? Hearing none, thank you so much.
As now we move on to issue four, closure of California Rehabilitation Center and overview of deactivated facilities. Sarah Larson, director, division of facility planning, construction, and management. Lynn Ishimato, assistant deputy director. Looks like it's gonna be
Speaker 1
Cynthia, staying there. LAO, department of finance. And we will start with
Speaker 6
Thank you. Cynthia Mendonso, CDCR. The department is requesting a net general funds decrease of 99,600,000.0 and an elimination of roughly 522 positions in 2627, and ongoing general fund savings of over a 150,000,000 and 778 positions starting in 2728. And a transition of the facility to a cold shutdown status to begin on August, October 2026. Due to the sustained declines in adult prison populations, CDC are evaluated its institutional footprint ensure the system is appropriately sized.
In August 2025, CDCR announced the planned closure of the California Rehabilitation Center by October 2026. The closure is expected to generate significant savings while maintaining public safety, health care access, and rehabilitative programming through population redistribution to other institutions. And this proposal includes targeted retention and realignment funding to ensure continuity of health care, transportation, IT services, rehabilitation programs, workers' compensation obligations, and other statewide operational needs. With that, we're available for questions. Thank
Speaker 3
We don't have any concerns with the specific budget adjustments before you related to the closure, so we do recommend approving them.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Department of Finance? Patrick Plant, Department of Finance. No additional comments available for questions. Thank you.
Any questions, comments from the diets? Mister Schultz?
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, mister chair. Two quick questions all really having to do with deactivation and and what happens to everyone that was at the facility. The first question is when you are transferring the incarcerated population, do you consider where the visiting families live, for example, to reduce the risk of breaking a family connection? Is that is that a consideration the department takes?
Speaker 10
Hi. Lynn Shimoda, assistant deputy director of facility support within the division of adult institutions. Yes. That's definitely one of the factors that we take into account when we're looking to move the incarcerated population. In addition to that, we look at if they're participating in any rehabilitative programs currently, if there are similar programs.
Also, if they're continuing in them, we're trying to delay their transfer if they can complete that program prior to to relocating.
Speaker 5
Very heartening to hear. Thank you. And then the flip side of the coin is for the staff, what options are they given? What are their their general the paths that they can travel?
Speaker 6
There's an extensive process for staff. And after this, after four other institutions being closed, there's a process of trying to place existing staff into, open positions in nearby locations. And that's really been the, like, path of what CDCR has been doing with this same population. So local nearby institutions such as CIM and CIW, are taking those staff books.
Speaker 1
Mhmm. Well, thank you so much. And and more on the disposing of the the properties themselves. Is that something that's under a CDCR or DGS?
Speaker 9
It's both, actually. Right. So the way that the process works, it's governed by a government code. 11 o 11 is kind of where that code section starts. But essentially what happens is when we have a property that we have a closed facility, for example, we declare it we can declare it surplus to our needs to the Department of General Services.
Then if the Department of General Services determines that it's surplus to the state's needs, it can consider legislation to allow it to sell or otherwise dispose of that surplus property. So once it's accessed to CVCR's needs and we've declared it access to our needs to the Department of General Services, that's where the Department of General Services roles take over. The government code section that I mentioned lays out the priorities for DGS to consider when a property is surplus to the state's needs. Top priority goes to local agencies that would use that property for affordable housing or housing for formerly incarcerated individuals. And then local agencies that might use it for open space or parks, that sort of thing.
If a surplus property is not sold to a local agency or a nonprofit affordable housing entity for those uses, then it can be offered to private entities through a public bidding process. There was recently government code section enacted to try to make it a little bit easier for CDCR to dispose of its properties by allowing DGS to use funds that were generated from the leasing of CDCR's facilities post closure to rehabilitate those facilities and make them more saleable. I think for CDCR, the challenge is that many of our facilities are in pretty remote locations. The size, the infrastructure that exists on those on that land makes them relatively unattractive candidates for redevelopment. So we're hopeful that that trailer bill language that was enacted to allow DGS to use those funds is helpful in that regard.
But we recognize that the demolition, the abatement costs associated with our infrastructure on that land makes it difficult to dispose of those properties. We do have 10 facilities that we have closed. One, DGS is working with an affordable housing provider on a a plan. One has been declared by legislation to be accessed to state needs. Five have been declared by CDCR to be accessed to our needs, but have not been declared by DGS to be accessed to the state's needs.
And then three of the locations have shared infrastructure with other CDCR institutions, And so we have not yet declared them access to our needs because we still are using that shared infrastructure and have to figure out how to disentangle that infrastructure for the purposes of disposing of those locations.
Speaker 1
We would get a follow-up summary on the areas that have not been declared so that we could keep an eye on on some of those and see where that's headed, as well as the ones that have been declared and see what the uses were for those, once they they move forward within the surplus, process. Okay?
Speaker 9
Absolutely. We report annually on those. I'd be happy to share all of that information with your staff.
Speaker 1
Thank you, so much for that. As now we move to public comment. But before we do, we have issues five, six, and seven. Do we have any, members on the dais, mister vice chair or assembly member Schultz? Any comments on five, six, or seven?
No? Thank you for that. As now we move on to public comment. We wanna have all, public comment move forward. State your name.
Speaker 11
Yes. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you, chair, committee members, and staff. Ryan Moore, meeting with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties.
First, we appreciate the inclusion of the prop 36, implementation and impacts updates, for today's hearing. However, we also respectfully request the consideration of the county impacts and more specifically would like to uplift the need for our county departments or funding for our county departments, who are the primary implementers of this measure. Absent state funding, counties are unable to deliver the necessary programs, services, and treatment as promised, to our shared constituency under the measure. If counties are inadequately funded, we may see different trends in terms of the number of individuals charged and more importantly, the number of individuals who enter and receive treatment. And we remain open to further conversations and, again, appreciate the consideration of this topic.
Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning, chair and members. George Framthu speaking on behalf of ACLU California action. Prop 36 is a false justification for keeping prisons open. The governor's budget states that prop 30 impact on prison population is minimal. All the while, the state has a surplus of 14,000 prison beds, and the prison population is projected to decline until 2030.
Californians deserve real solutions. We must fully shut down the three prisons we have deactivated and continue to close down the prisons as all three governor staff seem in favor of. Every dollar saved from those closures should go towards programs that actually serve our public safety, like health care, food assistance, and violence prevention. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Danica Rodarma on behalf of Transformative Programming Works, just highlighting that in the realm of CDCR's budget and the populations coming in to the prisons, ensuring that we're adequately funding community based programs offering rehabilitative programming through the right grant. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much for your comments. Any other public comment? Thank you so much as sub six is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.