Department of Fish and Game(3600) |
The Legislature appropriated $607,000 to the DFG for preliminary plans, working drawings, and construction in the 1992-93 Budget Act for a project to install a 200-foot deep well and ancillary equipment at the Fish Springs Hatchery in Big Pine, Inyo County. The well provides the water supply for raising and producing trout at the hatchery. The project has since been reappropriated by the Legislature for construction three times, in the Budget Acts of 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97. At those times the department did not advise the Legislature that the cost for the project had increased. The department, however, is now asking the Legislature to again reappropriate the prior funds and augment the project by $358,000--a 59 percent increase.
The department's justification for requesting the additional funds is that the project has been bid twice and the bids were too high.
The department, however, has not provided any rationale for the serious cost overrun on this project. The department has bid the project twice and at each time its cost estimate was within the current appropriation authority. (Otherwise, they could not have requested bids.) The department has neither justified the discrepancy between its estimates and the bids, nor has it explained what, if any, efforts were made to reduce the project costs.
Given these circumstances, we recommend the Legislature delete the requested $358,000. If the department provides additional information, some additional funding may warrant legislative consideration.
The DFG has applied for money from the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Demonstration Program (grant program), under the California Department of Transportation, to construct a 140 cubic foot concrete dam at the Schaeffer Barrier on the south fork of the Kern River in Tulare County. The purpose of constructing the dam is to help protect the Volcano Creek golden trout from interbreeding with other trout species which, according to the department, poses a threat to the Volcano Creek golden trout's existence. The department indicates that the project is part of a broader department program that is intended to protect the Volcano Creek golden trout species by preventing other trout species from entering the golden trout's natural habitat. The department, however, has not identified the other elements, or associated costs, of this program.
We have two concerns with this project. First, the grant program is generally intended to fund projects that mitigate negative environmental effects of transportation projects. The DFG has not identified any clear connection between this project and such negative environmental effects.
Furthermore, the department has not provided information to substantiate the estimated $499,000 project costs. Consequently, even if the grant program fund were an appropriate funding source, the Legislature does not have sufficient information to substantiate the adequacy of the requested amount.
Thus, we recommend that the Legislature delete the $499,000 request for the Volcano Creek Golden Trout, Schaeffer Barrier project.
Department ofBoating and Waterways(3680) |
The budget also proposes $45.6 million in local assistance funding for the department--$43.4 million from the HWRF and $2.4 million from federal funds. The HWRF local assistance funding includes $32.5 million for boating facility grants/loans, $7.6 million for boating safety programs, and $3.4 million for a beach erosion control project.
In the current year, the Legislature appropriated $706,000 in federal funds to the DBW to provide local assistance under the federal Clean Vessel Act Grant Program for sewage dumping facilities at boat docks. These funds were to enable boat owners to dump sewer waste into local sewage collection systems. The department indicates it plans to spend another $1,267,000 of federal funds for these purposes in the budget year.
While providing these dock facilities may be meritorious, the department has not provided any documentation to substantiate the request. For example, the department has not identified what the overall need and cost may be for these facilities, how many and where facilities will be constructed with the $1,267,000, or how the $706,000 in the current year was spent.
We believe this is basic information the Legislature should have before authorizing the expenditure of over $1 million. Therefore, we recommend that the Legislature delete the $1,267,000. If the department gives the Legislature the necessary information, funds for this proposal may warrant legislative consideration.
The DBW requests $106,000 to prepare working drawings in preparation for construction of a 7,750 gross square foot (gsf) facility at Silver Strand State Beach at San Diego. The facility would include an amphitheater, concession area, lifeguard tower, boat storage, and multipurpose room. The Legislature appropriated $119,000 in the 1996-97 Budget Act for preliminary plans for this project. The estimated future cost to construct the facilities is $1.4 million.
According to a department official, classes in boating safety are currently offered through Southwestern College in Chula Vista and taught at Silver Strand State Beach. Southwestern College uses an existing 5,900 gsf building for the classroom portion of these courses. This facility would be torn down and replaced with the proposed new facility.
We recommend that the Legislature delete the requested $106,000 for two reasons. First, the project is being proposed to meet the needs of Southwestern College's safety program. The program, however, is not the responsibility of the department, and the construction of facilities is not the responsibility of either the department or the state. Second, the need to construct the proposed facilities, at a total cost of $1.6 million, has not been justified. For example, the department has not explained the need for an additional 1,850 gsf. Furthermore, the department has not provided any justification for the construction of a new lifeguard tower, concession area, first aid station, or amphitheater.
The budget includes $3,517,000 for working drawings and construction to rehabilitate the
campground at San Elijo State Beach, San Diego County. The project includes work such as
rehabilitation of sewage facilities, replacement of comfort stations, and erosion control. In 1992,
the Legislature appropriated $132,000 for preliminary plans to rehabilitate this campground. In
1993, the Legislature appropriated $149,000 for working drawings based on estimated future
construction costs of $2.1 million. Adjusting the 1993 construction estimate for inflation indicates
that the same project should cost about $2.5 million in 1997. Thus, after adjusting for inflation,
the current requests represent a 39 percent increase in the legislatively approved amount to
complete working drawings and construction.
The DPR, however, has not provided any information in support of the higher cost. We have been
advised that the scope of the work in the project has been modified, but the DPR has not
identified the changes, the need for the changes, the associated costs, or any other factor to
account for the cost increase. Lacking any basis for the additional $980,000, we recommend that
the Legislature delete this amount from Item 3790-301-0001 (2) for the San Elijo State Beach
project.
The budget includes a proposed $10 million lump-sum appropriation from the General Fund offset
by reimbursements from two funding programs under the Department of Transportation--the
federal Transportation Enhancement Activities Program and the Environmental Enhancement
Mitigation Demonstration Program. In addition, proposed budget language under Item
3790-301-0001 would allow the DPR to borrow funds from the State Parks and Recreation Fund
(at no interest cost) to advance cash for authorized "reimbursement-funded" projects. There is no
information in the budget as to what capital outlay projects will be undertaken using this
$10 million.
The DPR has provided only a list identifying project titles and expected funding sources. The list
indicates an expectation of $3.3 million from the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation
Demonstration Program, for 16 projects, $6.4 million from the Transportation Enhancement
Activities Program, and $300,000 undesignated. The proposal includes project titles such as
"Stanford" for $900,000, "Pio Pico" for $792,000, "Marconi Conference Center Developments"
for $88,100, and "Windy Cove Project" for $177,000. The department, however, has provided no
explanation of the need, scope of work, or basis for the cost of the projects.
Lacking information on the proposed expenditure of $10 million, we recommend the Legislature
delete this amount from Item 3790-301-0001. If the DPR provides the appropriate information
for each project, the projects would warrant legislative consideration. In that case, we would
recommend that the Legislature add a new item to the budget bill identifying the fund source and
scheduling the individual projects, as is the case for all major capital outlay projects. In this way
there would be a clear understanding of what the Legislature approved, and the projects for which
the administration is accountable. We would also recommend deletion of language allowing cash
advances for these projects. Either the funds appropriated by the Legislature are available or the
project or projects should not proceed.
The budget includes $350,000 from the Environmental License Plate Fund for the final phase of a
six-phase project to inventory the resources at Anza Borrego Desert State Park. This is a project
to document the natural and culture resources of the 600,000-acre park. Four of the six phases
are complete and $250,000 was provided for phase 5 in the 1996-97 Budget Act. According to
the DPR, this phase will not be completed until December 1997 and therefore the budget bill
includes a request to reappropriate the 1996-97 funding.
The first five phases, which together will span over five years (the first phase was funded in
1992), will cost a total of $1.7 million. The need to spend another $350,000 on this effort is
unclear. For example, it is not clear what the state will have accomplished after spending
$1.7 million over five years, or what marginal benefit will be realized by spending another
$350,000. We believe a more prudent way to proceed would be for the DPR to complete phase 5
in the budget year, compile the information, and reassess the need for further work on this
project. Based on this information and assessment, the Legislature could then determine the
benefit of spending more state money on this project and whether such an expenditure is within
the Legislature's priorities. Consequently, we recommend that the Legislature delete the $350,000
requested for further inventory of resources at Anza Borrego State Park.
The budget includes a $4 million lump-sum appropriation to the DPR from the River Parkway
Subaccount, an account within the 1996 Safe, Clean, and Reliable Water Bond Fund. In total,
there is $27 million available in the River Parkway Subaccount of the Water Bond Fund. The
River Parkway Subaccount is earmarked for the acquisition and restoration of natural habitats
within and near rivers, and for river and stream trail projects. Figure 17 identifies the projects the
DPR proposes to undertake with the proposed $4 million appropriation from the River Parkway
Subaccount.
The DPR has provided no information beyond that shown in Figure 17 (see next page).
Consequently, the Legislature does not have any project information--such as the need for the
project, project descriptions, project costs, or project schedules--associated with the above list.
The Legislature therefore has no way to evaluate whether any of the proposed projects are
consistent with the intent of the River Parkway Subaccount, nor any way to evaluate whether the
proposed projects meet with legislative priorities for the use of funds. Furthermore, since the
Governor's budget proposes a lump-sum appropriation, there is no assurance that the projects in
Figure 17 will actually be undertaken. Hence, we recommend that the Legislature delete Item
3790-301-0545. If the DPR provides documentation sufficient to allow the Legislature to review
the merits of any of these projects, then the Legislature should consider these projects and
schedule individually any project or projects the Legislature decides to approve.
The budget includes $600,000 in federal funds from the Federal Trust Fund Matching Program
which would be available for unspecified park land acquisition and construction projects. The
DPR has not indicated what construction activities would be rtaken. Therefore it is not clear why
the DPR would need the authority to spend these funds for construction purposes. The DPR also
indicates that federal funds would be used under this item to match funds on a fifty-fifty basis
from nonstate sources (such as not-for-profit organizations). The DPR proposal indicates that
Scissors Crossing Acquisition Imperial,
Riverside (Fish) Barrier Removal Redwood Creek Watershed (endangered species) Habitat
Enhancement Sacramento Webb Creek German Ivy
Control San
Bernardino Big Sandy Creek Nature Trail Boardwalk Rehabilitation Watershed/Trail
Rehabilitation expected nonstate funds would be available for the purpose of acquiring property for the state
park system.
Given the intended uses of these funds and the expected availability of nonstate funds only to
acquire property, we recommend that the Legislature (1) delete the words "and construction"
under schedule 1 and (2) add the following language to Item 3790-301-0890:
The funds under this item are available for expenditure on a fifty-fifty matching basis with
nonstate funds only.
The budget proposes the reappropriation of funds for 26 DPR capital outlay projects for which
appropriated funds have not been encumbered. Many of these projects were originally funded
over three years ago, and in some cases ten years ago. Figure 18 (see next page) lists the projects
proposed for reappropriation that were originally funded in the 1994-95 Budget Act or earlier.
Rather than simply continue to reappropriate unencumbered funds for previously approved
projects, the DPR should reevaluate the need to continue these projects in the context of its
current capital outlay needs and priorities. Thus, given the length of time since the funds were
originally appropriated, we recommend that the Legislature delete the reappropriations listed in
Figure 18. After reevaluating the capital outlay program, including those projects listed in
Figure 18, the DPR should include any priority projects in future budget requests for legislative
consideration.
Projects Originally Funded in 1994-95 or Earlier Area In the 1996-97 Budget Act, the Legislature appropriated $2,989,000 to prepare preliminary plans
for a facility containing 302,000 gross square feet (gsf) of laboratories and offices and a 30,000
gsf warehouse. The budget proposes $4,551,000 for the working drawing phase of this project.
The estimated future cost is $92.6 million. According to the Department of General Services,
which is managing the project, the preliminary plan phase is scheduled to be completed in May
1997. We therefore withhold recommendation of the budget proposal pending completion of
preliminary plans that are consistent with the legislatively approved scope and cost. In addition,
and consistent with the discussion in our Crosscutting Issue, "Financing Future Capital Outlay
Costs" we recommend that the Legislature not approve any further funding for this project until
the administration identifies a fund source for the $92.6 million future construction cost of the
project and associated cost implications of this proposal.
$1,449,000 for phase 3 of fire protection system improvements at Napa State Hospital (NSH).
$472,000 for preliminary plans and working drawings for a perimeter security fence at NSH.
$867,000 for water system improvements at NSH.
$179,000 for preliminary plans and working drawings for fire/life safety improvements to the EB
Building at Patton State Hospital (future construction cost is $5 million.)
$2,579,000 to upgrade the electrical distribution system at Patton.
We recommend that the Legislature modify the proposal for a new security fence at NSH, as
discussed below.
The budget proposes $472,000 for preliminary plans and working drawings for a new security
fence at NSH. The project includes installing 8,550 linear feet of 16-foot high fence with razor
wire and electronic disturbance sensors, 20 lighting standards, 11 guard houses, 14 close circuit
television monitors, and a ten-foot wide perimeter access road. The project also includes a 7,200
square foot visitor building. The estimated future construction cost for the project is $6 million.
Concurrent with the building of this fence, the department proposes to add 87 permanent peace
officer positions at NSH--31 positions in 1997-98 and the remaining 56 positions in 1998-99. We
discuss this proposal in our analysis of the DMH support budget (please see the Health and
Welfare section of this Analysis).
The DMH indicates that the fence is needed to provide a more secure environment at the hospital
because it will be housing more Judicially Committed/Penal Code (JC/PC) patients. Specifically,
the department estimates that its JC/PC population will be 588 at the end of the current year
(including 185 developmentally disabled forensic patients treated at Napa through an interagency
agreement between DMH and the Department of Developmental Services). The JC/PC population
is projected to grow to 712 by the end of the budget year and to 906 by June 2001. Conversely,
the number of nonjudicially committed patients is expected to decline from 392 to 240 over this
time period.
Guard Houses Not Needed. Given the expected future composition of the patient population at
NSH, it is appropriate to provide a more secure environment for the surrounding community. We
believe that a portion of the department's request is excessive. As discussed above, the fence will
have electronic sensors and will be topped with razor wire. The secured area will have additional
lighting and closed-circuit television monitors. In addition, the department will have roving
vehicle patrols around the fence perimeter. It is also important to note that the JC/PC patients are
kept in housing units that are always locked. These patients are escorted to all activities taking
place outside their housing units. Given all of the proposed security enhancements, and the normal
security procedures governing staffing of JC/PC patients, the department has failed to justify the
need to also construct and staff 11 guard houses.
As a comparison, absent the guard houses, this project would still provide perimeter security
equal to or greater than that at various Department of the Youth Authority institutions. These
institutions each house several hundred wards, with the largest housing over 1,700 wards. Almost
70 percent of these wards were committed to the Youth Authority for violent offenses. The
Youth Authority does not station guards around its perimeter fences.
The capital outlay savings from eliminating the guard houses totals $359,000 and the annual
savings in operating costs totals about $2 million by eliminating the need for 61 peace officer
positions to staff the guard houses. We therefore recommend a reduction of $29,000 under Item
4440-301-0001 (2) from the amount proposed for preliminary plans and working drawings for
deletion of the guard houses from the project scope. The estimated savings in future construction
costs is $330,000.
Use Federal Funds for Construction. The department's proposal indicates that $6 million
would be needed in 1998-99 to construct the fence and that the project will be completed in
September 1999. Given that the JC/PC population will continue to grow during the period
that the fence is being designed and constructed, the state could enhance security at the
hospital by expediting completion of the project. The project is not complex and includes
basic elements for which cost estimates are relatively easy. Consequently, the project should
be designed and under construction within the budget year and within the estimated
project costs.
In our Crosscutting Issue, "Federal Crime Bill Grants" earlier in this section, we note that
California has already received $60.5 million in grants for prison construction pursuant to the
1994 federal crime bill. While the administration has proposed a specific plan for appropriating
these monies, we have (1) recommended that the Legislature reject specific portions of that plan
and (2) withheld recommendation on other elements of the plan. Our recommendations "free-up"
federal monies that could be used for the perimeter fence at NSH.
The purpose of these federal monies is to increase the states' capacity to house violent offenders.
Based on this criterion, we believe that the perimeter fence project at NSH is eligible for funding
because it will increase the capacity of the state hospitals to house offenders committed by the
judicial system.
We therefore recommend that the Legislature fund the construction phase of this project in
1997-98. The total project cost, net of our recommendation to eliminate the guard houses, is
$6,132,000. The federal grant will fund 90 percent of this amount, or $5,518,000. The state's
10 percent share is $614,000 from the General Fund. We recommend that the Legislature: (1)
increase Item 4440-301-0001 (3) by $142,000; and (2) establish a new Item 4440-301-0890 (1) in
the amount of $5,518,000.
New Prisons. The Governor proposes the authorization and ultimate construction of six
prisons costing an estimated $1.6 billion. The budget bill includes $300 million and the
balance would be proposed in separate legislation or a subsequent budget bill.
Existing Prisons. The budget also proposes:
$14.9 million from the General Fund for 18 major projects and for planning.
$13.4 million from the General Fund for minor capital outlay projects (total cost $250,000 or
less).
$31.3 million from proposed new authorizations of lease-payment bonds for 5 major projects.
The Governor's budget includes proposals involving the development of six new state prisons as
outlined below:
$40.6 million from federal prison construction grants and $9.6 million from the General Fund.
These funds would be to (1) acquire land and prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for
three prisons--at Delano and California City in Kern County and one in San Diego County--and
(2) undertake environmental studies for three additional prisons--at Taft in Kern County and one
each in Sacramento and Solano Counties.
$249.9 million from a proposed new authorization of lease-payment bonds to construct the prison
at Delano. Ninety percent of this amount is proposed to be offset by $224.9 million in
reimbursements from federal prison construction grants. We discuss the administration's proposed
use of federal grants in a Crosscutting Issue earlier in this section of the Analysis.
Authorize the construction of prisons at California City and in San Diego County through
legislation in 1997 that is separate from the budget bill. The estimated cost of these two prisons is
$511 million and is proposed to be financed with lease-payment bonds.
Authorize funding to complete design and construction of the fourth, fifth, and sixth prisons in
1998. The estimated cost of these three prisons is about $830 million. No fund source is identified
for these projects.
Four of the six new prisons would have celled housing units to accommodate medium- and
maximum-security (Level III and IV) inmates. The other two prisons would have reception
centers and Level III housing. The six prisons could house 27,600 inmates based on the CDC's
policy of housing two inmates in most cells. If the prison gymnasiums were to be used as
dormitory-type housing (as is the case in most new state prisons), total capacity would increase to
about 30,000 inmates.
Given that the inmate population is growing much more slowly than was predicted just one year
ago, it is difficult at this time to estimate the need for new prisons and the time frames when
funding for prisons should be provided. Based on the fall 1996 projections, the prison system
would reach its maximum capacity of 176,000 inmates by January 2000. This date could be later,
however, if inmate population growth continues to lag the projections.
We believe that the Legislature should only provide funding for new prisons after (1) carefully
assessing the CDC's spring 1997 inmate population projections, (2) determining how many and
what type of prisons should be constructed and when those prisons need to be completed in order
to address the projected population growth, and (3) deciding whether other measures should be
taken that would reduce inmate population growth and thus reduce the need for new prison
construction. We withhold recommendation on the budget request for planning and designing new
prisons pending a review of the CDC's spring projections and an assessment of the impact of
those projections on the need for new state prisons.
The environmental review for this project has been completed. Thus, CDC could start the
preliminary plans immediately after the budget is enacted. The CDC estimates that it will take at
least six months for the preliminary plans and seven months for the working drawings. Based on
these time frames, the department will not need construction funding in the budget year. We
therefore recommend deletion of the federal funds under Item 5240-302-0890 in the amount of
$224,910,000 and the lease-payment bond authorization under Item 5240-401.
The budget proposes $4.6 million to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for projects
related to providing mental health services to inmates.
Background. In 1994-95, the CDC began a three-year plan, including adding staff positions,
to upgrade its medical and mental health care delivery systems in response to ongoing
litigation. The department's Mental Health Services Delivery System is intended to provide
a continuum of care emphasizing early intervention, symptom management, and
stabilization. The treatment focuses on housing an individual in the least restrictive
environment possible and reintegrating the individual back into regular inmate programs
to the maximum extent possible.
Budget Proposal. The projects proposed in the budget are intended to provide facilities for
three programs within the system:
Reception Center Screening and Evaluation. All inmates entering the CDC's reception
centers are screened and evaluated to determine whether mental health services are needed.
Enhanced Outpatient Care (EOP). This provides a sheltered living environment within the
institution for seriously disordered inmates. The goal of this program is to get inmates
"mainstreamed" back into the general population of the prison. This program is offered at
14 institutions.
Correctional Clinical Case Management System (CCCMS). Each institution has case
managers to provide medication review and therapy to those inmates in the general
population requiring these services.
The budget proposals are to provide facilities for those institutions that (1) the CDC has
determined to not have appropriate existing facilities to provide the respective services or (2) have
not already been funded as part of new prison construction projects. In general, the projects
involve the renovation of existing space or the construction of new space to provide offices for
staff and treatment space for counseling and group therapy sessions. The three proposals for
preliminary plans and working drawings are as follows:
Reception Center Screening--$818,000 for facilities at seven institutions. Estimated future
construction cost is $2.9 million.
EOP--$1,064,000 for six institutions. Future construction cost is $3.7 million.
CCCMS--$2,713,000 for 15 institutions. Future construction cost is $9.2 million.
We have the following concerns with these proposals.
Scope of Project Inconsistent With Current Programs. The CDC has provided information
describing how the respective mental health services are being provided on an interim basis
until the proposed projects are completed. In general, the department has provided
reasonable justification as to why the programs need the dedicated office and treatment
space proposed by these projects in order to operate effectively.
Unfortunately, the scope of several projects included in the department's proposal does not match
the caseload and staffing levels in the various programs. For example, the department's capital
outlay proposal indicates that the EOP at California State Prison at Sacramento would have a
caseload of 34 inmates, a staff of 5.5 positions, and would require 2,800 square feet of program
space. The department recently provided information, however, showing that this institution will
be serving 192 inmates with 20.5 staff positions. Likewise, for the Reception Center Screening
Program at North Kern State Prison, the budget proposal indicates that the facility will
accommodate four staff, but the department now indicates that there are eight staff in the
program.
No Evaluation Plan for New System. As outlined in our analysis of the CDC's support
budget (in the Criminal Justice section of this Analysis), we note that the department has
not indicated how it plans to evaluate the implementation of its mental health system to
determine whether each part is effective in achieving its stated goals. For example, there
are no plans for examining whether the current structure of decentralized EOPs is the most
cost-effective way for the department to provide these services. If inmates are placed for
very long periods of time in EOPs, or spend their entire period of confinement in an EOP,
there is no need to have a decentralized program at many institutions. Therefore, if EOP
usage is long-term, it might be more cost-effective to convert one or two facilities for EOP
services. The department does not yet have complete data on EOP utilization, and will not
have such data until the program is fully implemented. Based on these uncertainties, it is
premature to renovate or build permanent EOP facilities until more information is
available on the effectiveness of the new system. As an interim step, it may be appropriate
to provide temporary modular facilities as needed to operate the programs.
Due to the issues discussed above, we cannot advise the Legislature whether the scope and cost
of the projects proposed in the Governor's budget are appropriate for the programs being offered
at the various institutions. We withhold recommendation pending clarification from the CDC on
the needs at each institution and a determination of whether less costly steps can be taken to
accommodate program needs until the current delivery systems have been fully implemented and
evaluated.
Projects Should Be Budgeted Individually. Each of the three types of projects are proposed
to be budgeted in three lump sum appropriations. Each respective project at the various
institutions, however, is a major capital outlay project. The state's budgetary practice has
always been to schedule the projects so as to improve accountability and provide better
legislative control. We therefore recommend that, at the time projects are funded, each be
listed separately in the budget schedule under Item 5240-301-0001.
The budget includes $14.5 million for projects to renovate or construct medical facilities at
several institutions to bring these facilities into conformance with correctional treatment center
(CTC) licensing standards. Specifically, $3.2 million is proposed from the General Fund to
prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for CTC projects at seven institutions and
$11.3 million in lease-payment bonds for the construction phase of CTC projects at five
institutions.
The proposed projects are meritorious and we recommend approval. These proposals are
contained in two lump sum appropriations, however, even though the CTC at each of the 12
institutions is a major capital outlay project (total cost over $250,000). Similar to the mental
health system projects discussed above, we recommend that the CTC projects be budgeted
individually as is normal practice for major projects.
The budget includes $8 million from the General Fund to make facility modifications at
correctional institutions in order to improve accessibility to facilities and programs for inmates
with disabilities. The proposal includes two appropriations: (1) $7,859,000 for minor capital
outlay projects at 16 institutions and (2) $97,000 for preliminary plans and working drawings for
major projects at two institutions. The estimated future construction cost for the major projects is
$970,000.
Background. In a class action lawsuit, Armstrong v. Wilson, a federal district court in San
Francisco ruled that CDC has not provided adequate access for inmates with disabilities to
allow these inmates to participate in various programs, services, and activities offered by
the department. The inmates contended that such access is required under the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The CDC maintains that these federal laws were not intended to extend to inmates in a
correctional institution. The department, however, has entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in this case. (The settlement agreement allows the state to appeal the
portion of the Armstrong case that concluded that ADA applies to prison inmates. The
Attorney General and CDC expect that the issue will be resolved only when it reaches the
United State Supreme Court.)
Prior to the filing of Armstrong v. Wilson, the department began a process of assessing its
constitutional responsibilities to inmates with disabilities. Based on this assessment, the
department identified four primary disability categories requiring specific housing and
programming needs that it believes are not adequately addressed in its institutions. The categories
are mobility-impaired (including wheelchair- and non-wheelchair bound), blind/vision-impaired,
deaf/hearing-impaired, and speech-impaired.
On January 16, 1996, the department conducted a survey to determine its existing population of
disabled inmates. On that date, there were 1,397 inmates classified as disabled--1 percent of the
prison system population on that date. Of this total, 345 inmates were confined to a wheelchair,
652 others were categorized as mobility-impaired (not confined to a wheelchair), 231 were
vision-impaired, 146 were hearing-impaired, and 17 were speech-impaired.
The department has prepared a Disability Placement Plan for the programmatic and facilities
modifications that it believes are needed to provide appropriate access for disabled inmates.
Examples of facilities modifications include accessible housing (cells and dormitories) and
restroom facilities and accessible path-of-travel to recreational areas, law libraries, and dining
facilities. Under the plan, inmates with disabilities would be placed at one of ten institutions
throughout the state. According to CDC, the ten institutions were selected to provide a mix of
accessible housing among all security levels and a variety of accessible programs and services. In
addition to the ten institutions, accessible facilities will be provided at all 12 of the CDC's
reception centers. Estimated capital outlay costs range from $1,000 at the Valley State Prison for
Women to $1.9 million at the California Institution for Men. Upon completion of the plan, CDC
indicates that they will be able to accommodate 2,237 disabled inmates, which allows for
projected growth in the disabled inmate population in line with total projected inmate population
growth.
The budget proposals for facilities modifications involve implementation of the CDC's Disability
Placement Plan. This plan has been submitted to the plaintiffs in the Armstrongcase as part of the
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement establishes a process in which the plaintiffs and
CDC will submit issues in dispute, such as issues regarding the Disability Placement Plan, to the
court for resolution in what are informally being termed "mini trials." Below we provide
recommendations regarding the department's budget proposals.
Reception Center Costs Could Be Avoided. The plan calls for a total of $5.2 million for
modifications to provide a total of 332 accessible beds at the twelve reception
centers--nearly $16,000 per bed. (This includes $4,486,000 in the budget and $692,000 in
future construction costs for the North Kern State Prison.) We believe that the state could
avoid this cost by establishing an administrative process whereby disabled inmates would
be sent directly from county jails to an appropriate state institution and thus bypass the
reception center process. Inmates are sent to reception centers generally for up to ninety
days for processing and evaluation of health, education, and security needs. The few
disabled inmates that are admitted to the prison system each year could be processed and
evaluated at the state institutions rather than the reception centers. We therefore
recommend a reduction of $4,486,000 associated with the budget-year portion of the
proposal for modifications at reception centers.
Alternatives to Avenal State Prison. The proposal includes $1,022,000 to provide accessible
beds for 48 medium-security (Level II) inmates at Avenal State Prison. The budget also
includes $18,000 for 24 accessible Level II beds at the California State Prison at Corcoran
II. Given the cost differential between these two proposals ($21,000 per bed at Avenal
versus $750 per bed at Corcoran II), the department should reevaluate placing more
disabled inmates at Corcoran II. Furthermore, the department could use some of the 2,000
new community correctional facility beds, now scheduled to be available by fall 1997, for
this purpose. The CDC's contracts for these facilities (which will house Level II inmates)
stipulate that the facilities must be accessible and must provide a full array of programs to
inmates. We therefore recommend a reduction of $1,022,000 for the proposed modifications
at Avenal.
Need for and Cost of Certain Other Modifications Unclear. The department's proposal
provides a detailed list of hundreds of modifications that will be undertaken to provide or
improve accessibility. Many of these modifications may be needed, but many may not. For
example, at the California Institution for Men, the proposal includes spending $87,000 in
the Protestant chapel to enlarge 13 doorways that are less than 31 inches wide. It is not
clear as to why so many doorways in one building would have to be modified in order to
provide accessibility. In the vocational education area at this institution, the department
plans to spend $163,000 for alterations that have not been clearly defined. We will meet
with the department prior to budget hearings to discuss these and other specific elements of
its proposal.
Based on the above, we recommend a reduction of $69,000 under Item 5240-301-0001 (2) and
$5,439,000 under Item 5240-301-0001 (17) related to the reception centers and Avenal State
Prison. We withhold recommendation on the remaining portions of the requests pending further
discussions with the department on specific elements of the proposals.
The budget includes $187,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings to clean up soil
and groundwater that is contaminated by Perchloroethene (PCE) at the California Institution for
Men. This action is required by the Regional Quality Control Board because tests on the domestic
water wells at the institution revealed concentrations of PCE exceeding federal and state drinking
water standards.
In the 1995-96 Budget Act, the Legislature provided $1.9 million for a study of this problem and
adopted budget language requiring that the completed study include a remediation plan for the
contamination. The department indicates that the recommendations for remediations, an action
plan for implementing the recommendations, and a completed scope and cost estimate will not be
complete until March. We therefore withhold recommendation on the budget request pending
review of the completed study and the scope and cost estimates for the project.
The department's capital outlay proposal for 1997-98 totals $53 million. This amount includes:
$3.5 million from the General Fund for minor projects (each project costs $250,000 or less).
$10.5 million from the General Fund for 16 major projects.
$8.4 million in new authorizations of lease-payment bonds for five major projects.
$30.7 million for projects to add 350 beds at existing institutions. Of this total, $27.6 million
would be from federal funds pursuant to the 1994 federal crime bill and $3.1 million is from the
General Fund.
Security Improvement Projects. As part of the $10.5 million proposed from the General Fund for
major projects, nine projects totaling $9 million are for security-related improvements at the
various institutions. We recommend approval of $5.6 million for six of these projects. Issues we
discuss below include proposals for additional perimeter fencing at three institutions and for
starting a project to install new personal alarm systems at all institutions.
The Governor's budget includes $30.7 million--$27.6 million from federal crime bill funds and
$3.1 million from the General Fund--to design and build five projects to add capacity for 350
wards at the Youth Authority. (The General Fund amount represents the state's required
10 percent matching funds associated with the federal crime bill grants.) The proposed projects
involve the construction of about 110,000 gross square feet of building space.
At the end of 1995-96, the ward population at the Youth Authority's institutions totaled 10,114.
By January 1, 1997, the ward population had declined by 9 percent to 9,198. This decline is
mainly due to legislation enacted in 1996 that transferred responsibility for all Department of
Corrections "M cases" over 18 years old from Youth Authority institutions to state prison. ("M
cases" are individuals who were under age 18 when sentenced to the CDC and ordered by the
court to be transferred to the Youth Authority to serve all or a portion of their commitment time.)
The Youth Authority has a current design capacity to house 6,762 wards. (Design capacity is
considered as one individual in a cell and using single bunk-beds in most dormitories.)
The Youth Authority's most recent projections (December 1996) estimate that, by June 2001,
ward population will return to about 10,000. This projection could likely be high because several
recent or pending actions give counties resources and incentives to provide alternatives to
committing individuals to the Youth Authority.
The imposition of sliding scale fees on counties for less serious offenders.
The increase from $25 to $150 in monthly fees paid by counties for each offender sent to the
Youth Authority.
The Governor's budget proposal to continue providing $32.7 million from the General Fund to
support county ranches and camps for juveniles.
The Governor's budget proposal to allocate $139 million in federal funds, from the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families grant, to counties for juvenile offenders housed in county facilities.
Even if we assume the budget's projected ward population of 10,000, the Youth Authority
institutions will be operating at an overcrowding level of 149 percent of design capacity on June
2001--slightly less than the level in 1995-96. The addition of 300 beds at a cost of $26 million will
only marginally reduce overcrowding--to 143 percent of design capacity. Given the potential for
even slower ward population growth, we believe that the Youth Authority can continue to
operate within the range of overcrowding expected within the next four years.
We therefore recommend deletion of 300 of the 350 new beds proposed for the Youth Authority.
We discuss the other 50-bed project below.
Southern Reception Center and Clinic. We recommend the Legislature approve $469,000
from the General Fund and $4,217,000 from federal funds for the project to add a 50-bed
intensive treatment facility at the Southern Reception Center and Clinic. In the 1996-97
Budget Act, the Legislature approved $175,000 to prepare preliminary plans for this
project. This facility would be for those wards who are severely emotionally disturbed,
developmentally disabled, psychotic, mentally disordered, or have severe physical
handicaps. The additional 50 beds are needed because the Youth Authority has a
substantial waiting list for wards needing such treatment and, given the characteristics of
these wards, it is difficult to overcrowd in this program.
The budget proposes $990,000 for preliminary plans and working drawings to install new
personal alarm systems at all Youth Authority institutions. The estimated future construction
costs are $8.6 million. The department indicates that new alarm systems are needed because the
existing systems consist of incompatible components added over many years such that many
institutions have two or three separate systems. According to the department, this requires many
staff to carry multiple signaling devices, which causes confusion as to which device to use. We
have the following concern with this proposal.
Separate Alarm System Project Should Be Prototype. In the 1995-96 Budget Act, the
Legislature approved $45,000 to prepare preliminary plans for replacing the personal
alarm system at the Southern Reception Center and Clinic. The Governor's budget
proposes $1.1 million for working drawings and construction to complete this project in
1997-98. Using the preliminary planning funds, the department engaged a consultant to
determine which of the available alarm technologies would best suit the institution's needs
within the established project budget. The consultant concluded that two of the available
systems would meet the project goals and recommended that the construction bid be based
on the cost to install one of these specified systems.
We believe that, prior to going forward with a project to install new alarm systems at
allinstitutions at an estimated cost of at least $1 million per site, the Youth Authority should have
the advantage of information that will be available regarding the cost and performance of the
system to be installed at the Southern Reception Center and Clinic. In essence, that project should
be the prototype and the new system should be functional and deemed appropriate for meeting the
Youth Authority's security needs prior to embarking on a statewide effort. The prototype system
will probably be installed and functional in 1998-99, at which time the department can determine
whether it is appropriate to replicate or modify this system for use at its other institutions. We
note that the Youth Authority will still have functioning, albeit older alarm systems in its
institutions. In addition, a proposal for any short-term, interim improvements that could be made
to the existing systems would warrant the Legislature's consideration. Pending installation and
evaluation of the prototype system, we recommend deletion of $990,000 from Item
5460-301-0001 (2) for the statewide personal alarm system project.
The budget proposes to install a second perimeter security fence at three Youth Authority
institutions. Specifically, $1,800,000 is proposed to design and construct a new fence at the
Herman G. Stark Youth Training School and $575,000 is proposed for preliminary plans and
working drawings for fences at El Paso de Robles School and the Ventura School. The future
cost for the latter two projects is $4.4 million.
In addition, the Youth Authority indicates that it intends to request an additional $9.7 million in
1998-99 to install additional fences at three other institutions--the Fred C. Nelles School, the
Northern Reception Center and Clinic and the Southern Reception Center and Clinic. The
department indicates that these second fences are needed to enhance security at the institutions
and to reduce the potential for escapes. In the last three years, 12 escapes have occurred through
or over existing perimeter fences at Youth Authority institutions.
No Specific Justification Provided. The department has not indicated what problems exist
with perimeter security at each of the six institutions or whether other, less costly
alternatives to enhance security are available in lieu of capital outlay expenditures totaling
$16.5 million. For example, it is possible that security could be improved through improved
motion detection or alarm systems, additional lighting and/or closed-circuit television, or
the addition of perimeter patrols. In addition, the Youth Authority should examine
whether any changes in its operational procedures would reduce the potential for escapes.
Finally, the department should examine whether there are specific locations along the
existing perimeter fences that are particularly vulnerable and in need of improvement.
Recommendation. For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that the Youth
Authority has adequately demonstrated the need for this $16.5 million in improvements.
We therefore recommend deletion of the proposed funding for these projects. A project
that would address specific problems with the existing perimeter fences and propose the
most cost-effective solutions would merit the Legislature's consideration. Delete $575,000
under Item 5460-301-0001 (3) and $1,800,000 under Item 5460-301-0001 (14).
The budget proposes $234,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for
replacement of the sewer line at the Fred C. Nelles School. The project consists of installing over
14,000 linear feet of pipe, 68 new manholes, one sewage lift station, and a force-main to serve
one building at the school. The estimated future construction cost is $1.6 million. The department
indicates that the new system is needed because the existing pipes are deteriorated and often
require expensive emergency repairs.
Proposal Inconsistent With Study. In 1994, an infrastructure study and utilities master plan was
prepared for the school by an engineering consultant. The consultant surveyed the main portions
of the sewer collection system and, based on this analysis, recommended installation of 2,500
linear feet of pipe and construction of seven new manholes. This would clearly be a much more
limited and less costly project than what the budget proposes. The consultant also recommended
that sewer lines that were not included in his survey be mechanically cleaned and that any
damaged sections be repaired or replaced--work that should be accomplished through the
department's maintenance budget.
We therefore recommend deletion of the budget proposal because it is greatly beyond the scope
of what the consultant indicated was necessary to address identified deficiencies with the sewer
system. A project to correct deficiencies identified by the consultant would warrant the
Legislature's consideration.
The budget includes $325,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings to develop a
site to expand the Free Venture program, including constructing a 20,000 square foot building, at
the Ventura School. The estimated future construction cost is $2.2 million.
Under the Free Venture program, the state provides facilities within an institution for a business
to operate, with the goal of improving the work habits and job skills of wards. Wards are paid
wages comparable to those in the community, and a portion of these wages is directed to
restitution for victims of crime and as reimbursement for the ward's room and board costs. As of
October 1996, there were 127 wards in free venture operations within the Youth Authority,
including 81 wards at the Ventura School.
The department indicates that there is no existing space available for additional free venture
facilities within the existing secure perimeter at Ventura. In the past year, the department could
not accommodate two companies that each wanted 20,000 square feet of building space and were
capable of hiring 75 wards. We believe that the request for additional building space is
appropriate, but we have a concern with the amount of site development being proposed for this
facility.
About one-half of the estimated project construction cost (about $1 million) is to prepare a
12-acre site, not only for the 20,000 square-foot building, but to accommodate future expansion
for an additional 100,000 square feet of buildings. This involves clearing and grading the site,
extending the facility's secure perimeter fence and patrol road, and installing site utilities. We do
not believe that the department should be preparing for such a large expansion of the Free
Venture program until there is an assessment of how this program fits on a priority basis with the
Youth Authority's other rehabilitative programs and other capital outlay needs. In our analysis of
the department's support budget, we recommend that the department perform a needs assessment
to determine what programs and resources will be required to serve its changing institutional
population. Pending such an assessment, we recommend deletion of the project as proposed. A
project that would provide the necessary site for the construction of a 20,000 square foot free
venture building would merit the Legislature's consideration. (Delete $325,000 from Item
5460-301-0001 [10].)
The budget proposes $32.5 million for capital outlay for the Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR). This amount includes $6.8 million from the General Fund, $10.4 million from various
special funds, $4.7 million in bond funds, $0.6 million in federal funds, and $10 million from two
grant programs under the Department of Transportation--the Environmental Enhancement and
Mitigation Demonstration Program and the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (the
$10 million is shown in the budget as reimbursements). The largest special fund source is
$6.8 million from the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund.
Department of Parks and
Recreation
(3790)
San Elijo State Beach, Campground Rehabilitation
We recommend that the Legislature reduce the $3,517,000 request for working drawings and
construction for a project to rehabilitate the San Elijo State Beach by $980,000 because this
request represents a 39 percent augmentation to the project previously approved by the
Legislature and the administration has not substantiated the higher cost. (Delete $980,000 from
Item 3790-301-0001.)
Schedule Projects Rather Than Lump-Sum Appropriation
We recommend that the Legislature delete the proposed lump-sum "reimbursement" amount of
$10 million under Item 3790-301-0001 and establish new items to schedule any individual
project the Legislature approves for funding, using amounts available from the Department of
Transportation. Further, we recommend deletion of budget language that allows the department
to borrow funds from the State Parks and Recreation Fund to advance cash for authorized
"reimbursement-funded" projects. (Delete $10 million under Item 3790-301-0001.)
Anza Borrego Desert State Park Resource Inventory, Phase 6
We recommend that the Legislature delete $350,000 requested for phase 6 of the Anza Borrego
Desert State Park Resource Inventory because the department should complete the prior phases
of this inventory, document the results, and evaluate whether or not additional work is necessary.
(Delete $335,000 from item 3790-301-0140.)
River Parkway Program
We recommend that the Legislature delete $4,000,000 from Item 3790-301-0545 due to a
complete lack of information on which to evaluate the merits of the proposed capital outlay
projects themselves. (Delete $4,000,000 from Item 3790-301-0545.)
Federal Trust Fund, Acquisition and Construction
We recommend that the Legislature add language to Item 3790-301-0890 stipulating that
expenditure of the federal funds under this item are subject to a receipt of matching funds from
nonstate sources. Further, we recommend that the Legislature restrict the use of these funds to
property acquisitions by deleting the words "and construction" under schedule (1).
Figure 17
California State Parks: River Parkway Program
Park Unit
Project Name
County
Acquisition
Projects
Anza-Borrego
Desert SP
Sentenac Canyon, Cienega
and
San
Diego,
South Yuba
River
River Corridor Acquisition
Nevada
Donner
Memorial SP
Coldstream Canyon
Property Acquisition
Nevada,
Placer
Natural Resource Restoration Projects
Richardson
Grove SP
Durphy Creek Fisheries
Rehabilitation
Humboldt
Bidwell-Sacramento River
SP
Riparian Forest Restoration,
Old Chico Landing
Butte,
Glenn
Ano Nuevo SR
Whitehouse Creek/Old
Woman Creek
San
Mateo
Mount
Tamalpais SP
Riparian Restoration: Fern
Creek and
Marin
McConnell
SRA
Riparian Woodland
Restoration
Merced
Ano Nuevo SR
Red-legged Frog/San
Francisco Garter Snake
San
Mateo
Folsom Lake
SRA
Mississippi Bar Interagency
Riparian Restoration Project
Placer, El
Dorado,
Caswell
Memorial SP
Bank Stabilization and
Rehabilitation
San
Joaquin
Mount
Tamalpais SP
Riparian Restoration:
Redwood Creek and
Marin
Humboldt
Lagoons SP
McDonald Creek
Restoration
Humboldt
Picacho SRA
Riparian Habitat
Restoration
Imperial
Topanga SP
Los Liones Canyon
Restoration
Los
Angeles
Chino Hills SP
Aliso Creek Restoration
Orange,
Riverside,
Leo Carrillo
SP
Arroyo Sequit Restoration
Los
Angeles,
Ventura
Trails Projects
Millerton Lake
SRA
San Joaquin River Trail,
South Findgold to
Fresno,
Madera
Lake Oroville
SRA
Feather River Trail
Butte
Russian Gulch
SP
Russian Gulch Creek Trail
Rehabilitation
Mendocino
McGrath SB
Santa Clara Estuary Natural
Preserve Wetlands
Ventura
South Yuba
River
Bridgeport Whole Access
River Trail
Nevada
Mount Diablo
SP
Sycamore Creek Trail
Contra
Costa
Auburn SRA
Pacific Mountain Quarry
Railroad River Trail
Placer, El
Dorado
Point Mugu
SP
Buckeye Trail, Sycamore
Canyon Riparian Area
Ventura
Humboldt
Redwoods SP
South Fork, Eel River and
Bull Creek
Humboldt
SB: State Beach; SP: State Park; SR: State Reserve; SRA:
State Recreational Area
Department Reappropriations
We recommend that the Legislature delete all reappropriations requested under Item 3790-490
for those projects that were originally funded in 1994-95 or before. The department should then
reevaluate these projects in the context of its entire capital outlay program and priorities, and
include any priority projects in future budget requests.
Figure 18
Proposed 1997-98 Reappropriations
Fund/Project
Year Originally
Funded
General Fund
Statewide: Dispatch Centers Program
1993-94
Public Resources Account Fund
Navarro River Project Improvements
1992-93
Reimbursements for Navarro River
Project
1992-93
Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund
Hungry Valley SVRA: Initial
Development
1991-92
Opportunity Purchases: Acquisition
1993-94
Opportunity Purchases: Acquisition
1994-95
State Parks and Recreation Fund
Old Sacramento SHP: Engineering
Building Site
1987-88
La Purisima Mission SHP
1990-91
Harbors and Watercraft Revolving
Fund
Statewide: Dispatch Centers Program
1994-95
Parklands Fund of 1984
Matching Funds for State Parks
Acquisitions
1987-88
1988 Bond Fund
Bolsa Chica State Beach: Camping
Facilities
1994-95
Santa Cruz Mission SHP: Public Use
Facilities
1994-95
Statewide: CEQA Filing Fees
1994-95
Federal Fund
Federal Trust Matching Program:
Proposed Additions
1994-95
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act; SHP: State
Historic Park; SVRA: State Vehicle Recreation
The Department of Health Services (DHS) owns and operates laboratory facilities in Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and Fairfield. The 1997-98 Governor's Budget for DHS capital outlay consists of
$4.5 million (General Fund) to prepare preliminary plans for the second phase of the department's
new laboratory facilities in Richmond. We discuss this project below.
Department of Health
Services
(4260)
Richmond Laboratory Phase II
We withhold recommendation on $4.5 million from the General Fund for working drawings
pending (1) completion of preliminary plans that are consistent with the scope and cost as
previously approved by the Legislature and (2) identification by the administration of a future
funding source and associated cost implications.
The Department of Mental Health (DMH) operates four state hospitals (Atascadero,
Metropolitan, Napa, and Patton) and manages treatment services at Camarillo State Hospital,
which will be closed as a state hospital at the end of the current fiscal year. The department's
capital outlay request totals $6.7 million from the General Fund for five major projects
($5.5 million) and for minor projects ($1.2 million). The major projects are:
Department of Mental
Health
(4440)
Napa State Hospital--Fencing Project Should Be Expedited
We recommend: (1) reducing the scope of a new perimeter fence to eliminate 11 guard houses
and (2) providing construction funds (available under the federal crime bill) because this revised
project should be ready for construction in the budget year. (Increase Item 4440-301-0001 [3]
by $142,000 and create a new Item 4440-301-0890 for $5,518,000.)
The 1997-98 Governor's Budget requests $360 million in capital outlay spending for the
Department of Corrections (CDC). This amount includes $300 million for new prisons and
$60 million for projects involving existing prisons:
Department of Corrections
(5240)
New Prison Proposals
Given that the actual inmate population continues to be lower than the Department of
Corrections' projections, we withhold recommendation on funding for planning and design of
new prisons pending review of the department's spring 1997 inmate population projections and
an analysis of the need for new state prisons based on those projections. We further recommend
deletion of $224.9 million in federal funds and deletion of budget bill language authorizing
lease-payment bonds for the construction of the Delano II prison because construction monies
will not be needed in the budget year. (Delete Items 5240-301-0890 and 5240-401.)
Prison Population Growth Uncertain
The state's prison inmate population, as estimated in the fall of 1996 by the CDC, was projected
to grow from 145,000 on January 1, 1997 to 204,000 by June 2002. This forecast is down
significantly, however, from the CDC's spring 1996 estimate of 237,000 inmates by mid-2002.
Furthermore, at the time this analysis was written, the actual inmate population was almost 2,000
inmates below what the fall 1996 projections indicated for mid-January. If this trend continues,
the spring 1997 projections will again be revised downward.
Construction Funding Not Needed in Budget Year
In addition to providing funds to complete preliminary plans and working drawings, the budget
also proposes funding for construction of the prison designated for Delano in Kern County. As
discussed earlier, the construction would be funded with a new authorization of $250 million in
lease-payment bonds, which is proposed to be offset in part by $225 million in expected federal
prison grants.
Existing Prisons Mental Health System Projects
We withhold recommendation on $4.6 million for projects related to delivery of mental health
services, pending (1) clarification from the department on the scope of these projects and (2) a
determination of whether less costly measures should be taken until the current delivery systems
have been fully implemented and evaluated. We recommend that, as with other major capital
outlay projects, these projects should be scheduled individually in the 1997-98 Budget Bill.
Correctional Treatment Centers
We recommend that, consistent with state budgeting practice, these major capital outlay projects
be scheduled individually for each institution under Items 5240-301-0001 and 5240-301-0660.
Disability Placement Plan Projects
We recommend a reduction of $69,000 under Item 5240-301-0001 (2) and $5,439,000 under
Item 5240-301-0001 (17) for modification of correctional institutions to provide access for
disabled inmates because (1) disabled inmates should bypass the reception center process and be
sent directly to an institution and (2) disabled inmates classified for Level II security should be
sent to California State Prison at Corcoran II or to community correctional facilities. We
withhold recommendation on the remaining $28,000 in Item 5240-301-0001 (2) and $2,420,000
in Item 5240-301-0001 (17) pending further review with the department on the merits of the
specific modifications proposed at the other institutions.
California Institution for Men, Perchloroethene Cleanup
We withhold recommendation on $182,000 to clean up contaminated groundwater and soil,
pending completion of a previously funded study to determine a cleanup plan.
The Department of the Youth Authority operates 11 institutions, including two reception centers,
and six conservation camps throughout the state. The Youth Authority's five-year capital outlay
plan proposes expenditures totaling $546 million from 1997-98 through 2001-02. About
$142 million of this total would be for the design and construction of facilities to provide 1,450
additional beds at various existing institutions. The plan also includes $245 million in 2001-02 for
a new 1,800-bed institution.
Department of the Youth
Authority
(5460)
Projects for Additional Institution Capacity
We recommend deletion of $2.6 million from the General Fund and $23.4 million in federal
funds for projects to increase institution capacity by 300 beds because (1) based on Youth
Authority projections, ward population will remain relatively stable in the short-term; and (2)
these projections may be overstated. (Delete $23,391,000 from Item 5460-301-0890 and
$2,599,000 from the Item 5460-302-0001.)
Statewide, Personal Alarm Systems
We recommend deletion of $990,000 from the General Fund to install personal alarm systems at
all institutions pending completion and evaluation of a new alarm system to be installed at the
Southern Reception Center and Clinic. (Delete $990,000 from Item 5460-301-0001 [3].)
Security Fencing
We recommend deletion of $2.4 million from the General Fund to install a second perimeter
security fence at three institutions because the department has not demonstrated the need for
these fences. (Delete $575,000 from Item 5460-301-0001 [3] and $1,800,000 from Item
5460-301-0001 [14]. Future savings of $4.4 million.)
Nelles School--Sewer Line Replacement
We recommend deletion of $234,000 from the General Fund to replace a sewer system because
the project scope greatly exceeds the recommendations of an engineering study for system
improvements. (Delete $234,000 from Item 5460-301-0001 [7]. Future savings of $1.6 million.)
Ventura School--Free Venture Corridor
We recommend deletion of $325,000 from the General Fund for new free venture work space
because the project includes significant site development costs associated with future
expansions of the Free Venture program. A revised proposal that conformed to current
program expansion would merit the Legislature's consideration. (Delete $325,000 from Item
5460-301-0001 [10].)
Return to 1997-98 Budget Analysis Table of Contents
Return to LAO Home Page