Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Swisstack

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1/24/06

2/15/06 HB 264/aHAFC

SHORT TITLE County Detention Facility Reform Act

SB

ANALYST Peery

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY06

FY07

NA

NA

NA

NA

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney General’s Office (AG)

New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC)

New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD)

Association of Counties (AC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HAFC Amendment

The House Appropriation and Finance Committee amendment to House Bill 264 deletes on page

one, line 14 “; MAKING AN APPROPRIAITON” and deletes on page four Section six in its

entirety that deals with appropriation. The amendment also calls for on page two, line 17 and

page three, line nine and 12 the deletion of “shall” to be replaced by “may” in regards to reim-

bursements to a county.

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 264 appropriates $25,000.0 from the general fund to the “County Detention Facility

Reform Fund” for expenditure in fiscal year and subsequent years to carry out the provisions of

the County Detention Facility Reform Act.

The proposed legislation creates a new “County Detention Facility Reform Fund” in the State

Treasury, to be administered by the Department of Finance Administration (DFA). Money in the

fund may not be used by DFA for administration of the fund. Money in the fund is to be used for

House Bill 264/aHAFC – Page 2

reimbursing counties for the incarceration of a state prisoner who: has violated his parole and is

charged with a parole violation; while on parole is charged with a violation of local, state, tribal,

federal or international law; is awaiting transportation and commitment to the Corrections De-

partment following pronouncement of a judgment, sentence or order to confinement; is charged

with a violation of his/her probation by the department or by the district court; is sentenced, or-

dered or removed by the district court to incarceration in a county detention facility; or is incar-

cerated on the basis of an arrest and hold order or a warrant issued by the Corrections Depart-

ment. The proposed legislation defines a “state prisoner” as a person charged with or convicted

of a violation of state law, with the exception of those individuals convicted of a misdemeanor.

NMCD states the proposed legislation sets the rate of reimbursement at the actual cost per day

for housing each prisoner incarcerated in that county’s detention center, but it does not state what

the actual cost is, or who will determine the actual cost. The proposed legislation requires DFA

to reimburse the counties for the cost of providing ancillary services - such as medical, dental,

mental health, vision care, prescription drugs and ambulatory/transportation services - to state

prisoners housed in county facilities. The proposed legislation also states that no one county can

be reimbursed more than 50 percent of the money in the fund.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $25,000.0 contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general fund.

Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of a fiscal year shall not revert

to the general fund.

This bill creates a new fund and provides for continuing appropriations. The LFC has concerns

with including continuing appropriation language in the statutory provisions for newly created

funds, as earmarking reduces the ability of the legislature to establish spending priorities.

NMSC reports that the legislature could choose to adopt the definition of “state prisoner” in this

proposed legislation or could modify the definition to include fewer or more inmates. The defi-

nition will control whether costs continue to be borne by the counties or are passed to the state.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

NMSC reports they conducted a study for the New Mexico Association of Counties that provides

a count of individuals held on felony charges in six detention facilities in New Mexico on June

30, 2003 and estimates the annual cost of housing four categories of felony arrestees throughout

the state. NMSC updated the cost estimates based on arrestees held on June 30, 2005. The re-

port shows the estimated cost of housing arrestees held on felony charges in county detention

facilities is $25,308,662. This is $308,662 higher than the appropriation in the proposed legisla-

tion.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

NMCD states they had previously suggested that the Local Government Division of DFA admin-

ister the fund. NMCD agrees that the fund would be best administered DFA.

House Bill 264/aHAFC – Page 3

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

The proposed legislation has a relationship to House Bill 426 and House Bill 414.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

NMCD states the proposed legislation’s definition of “state prisoner” is extremely broad and un-

usual. NMCD reports typically, a person would only become a state prisoner if he was impris-

oned or sentenced to the custody of the department. NMCD reports the definition in the bill in-

cludes individuals, such as those placed on probation, that are simply not state prisoners and that

would often never be incarcerated in a state prison. NMCD states under this broad definition of

state prisoner, the department’s exposure to liability could be increased. NMCD gives the fol-

lowing example, a state prisoner in a county facility is attacked by other inmates and seriously

injured or killed there, the family of the injured or murdered inmate may very well attempt to sue

the Corrections Department and claim that it is the department’s fault that the inmate was injured

or murdered. NMCD suggests the proposed legislation should be amended to remove the defini-

tion of state prisoner, to add language indicating it only deals with payment issues, and to clarify

it does not make the State of New Mexico or the Corrections Department responsible for the care

and safekeeping of inmates housed in various county facilities.

ALTERNATIVES

The New Mexico Association of Counties reports in the 2004 legislative session, the Legislature

gave counties increased taxing authority of a new 1/16

th

of countywide general purpose author-

ity, and expanded 1/8

th

countywide for maintaining and constructing detention facilities as well

as extraditing and transporting state prisoners. The New Mexico Association of Counties reports

18 counties have enacted this new authority and others are considering an increase in their local

taxes to meet the escalating cost of prisoners.

RLP/nt:mt