HARRY HUGHES, Governor

3939

short-term offenders from local detention centers to the State
system, a result directly counter to the bill's original intent
and to sound correctional policy. This diversion is particularly
objectionable since the Division of Correction currently houses
40% more prisoners than its rated capacity, a level. of
overcrowding that exceeds virtually any of the local detention
centers.

Not only does this amendment negate the intended
clarification of existing State-local prisoner confinement
responsibilities, but under this language the State correctional
system would actually be placed in a less advantageous position
relative to existing law. Under current law, the State, for
fiscal as well as correctional policy reasons, is protected from
housing prisoners with sentences of less than 90 days. Under
House Bill 354, the State would be responsible for (1) housing
those short-term offenders (e.g., 30 day sentences) that cannot
be housed at a local facility that has attained its rated
prisoner capacity; (2) providing operating subsidies to all local
jurisdictions to partially support the current level of
operations at their detention centers; (3) providing additional
operating subsidies for those local facilities accepting
significantly more prisoners under the provisions of the bill;
(4) providing 100% capital funding to those jurisdictions
requiring new construction or expansion of local centers, while
the State houses the inmates intended for the recipient
subdivisions; and (5) receiving all prisoners with sentences in
excess of 18 months. Thus, the total impact of signing into law
House Bill 354 does not represent a very attractive proposition
from the State's perspective.

A related problem is also created by the language contained
in the amended Article 27, Section 690(h) of the bill with
respect to local expansion or construction projects referenced in
Section 705(E)(1). Under this provision, the decision of a local
jurisdiction to pursue expansion or construction of a detention
facility would be entirely optional. In the interim, both while
a jurisdiction is determining whether or not to proceed with a
capital project and during the actual construction phase, all
prisoners earmarked for the local facility would be diverted to
the State system under Section 690(h) of the bill. Clearly, this
diversion of prisoners to the State system would eliminate a
significant incentive for a local jurisdiction to proceed with
expansion or construction in an expeditious manner. In fact,
given the partial State operating subsidy for, all local
prisoners, the decision to proceed with a capital project would
clearly be contrary to a local jurisdiction's financial interest.

Prior to adoption of the Senate floor amendments, House Bill
354 had a projected fiscal impact of $7.3 million upon full
implementation of the provisions of the bill in Fiscal Year 1989.
With the adoption of the amendments, it is difficult to estimate
the additional cost to the State of housing the prisoners
originally projected for local centers since the length of