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 Harden
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
2/6/06
HB
SHORT TITLE COLFAX COUNTY INMATE REIMBURSEMENT SB 732
ANALYST Hadwiger
APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)
Appropriation
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY06
FY07
$117.0
Recurring
General Fund
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Responses Received From
Corrections Department (DOC)
Department of Finance and Administration (DFA)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
Senate Bill 732 appropriates $117 thousand from the general fund to the Local Government Di-
vision (LGD) of the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) in FY07 to reimburse
Colfax County for housing state prisoners.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The appropriation of $117 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general
fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY07 would revert to
the general fund.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Several counties (Torrance, San Miguel, Taos, Rio Arriba, Socorro, San Juan Curry, Los Ala-
mos, and others) have legislation pending this year that would reimburse them for the cost of
housing prisoners that are awaiting state custody for various reasons. Collectively, these bills
reflect concerns that counties are getting stuck with the bill for housing prisoners who have vio-
lated parole or are charged with a parole violation; while on parole, are charged with a violation
pg_0002
Senate Bill 732 – Page
2
of local, state, tribal, federal or international law; are awaiting transportation and commitment to
the corrections department following the pronouncement of a judgment, sentence or an order of
confinement; are charged with a violation of probation by the corrections department or by a dis-
trict court; are sentenced, ordered or removed by the district court to incarceration in a county
detention facility for a felony conviction; or are incarcerated on the basis of an arrest-and-hold
order on a warrant issued by the corrections department. DFA indicated concern about the struc-
ture of some of the other bills, which would appropriate funds to the Board of Finance, which
lacks a process for distributing funds to local governments. This bill is preferable to that ap-
proach in that funds are appropriated to the Local Government Division; however, DFA indicates
that a better approach might be to appropriate the funds directly to the Department of Correc-
tions, which is best able to determine the prisoners who are properly categorized for reimburse-
ment.
DFA indicated counties currently are required to apprehend and hold violators of state offenses.
These individuals are guilty of violating state offenses such as parole violations. County officials
have tried unsuccessfully in the past to collect these expenses from the DOC.
The Corrections Department (DOC) indicated concern that the language in this bill might pre-
vent expenditure of the appropriation for its intended purpose. In particular, DOC noted that
similar bills from other individual counties (requesting appropriations for individuals county fa-
cilities to pay the incarceration costs of housing certain inmates) do not use the term state pris-
oner, but have indicated that the individuals covered for payment are those charged with or con-
victed of violations of state law who have allegedly violated their conditions of parole (including
being charged with committing a new crime while on parole); violated their conditions of proba-
tion; are awaiting transportation and commitment to DOC following the pronouncement of a
judgment and sentence; are placed in the county detention facility by the judge due to a felony
conviction; and are incarcerated on the basis of an arrest and hold order or warrant issued by the
DOC. DOC assumed that Colfax County is, via this bill, also seeking payment for these same
categories of inmates or prisoners, although a good number of these prisoners would not be state
prisoners (with state prisoners defined as those prisoners that end up being sent to the custody of
the DOC for incarceration in a Department operated prison or in a privately operated prison in
Santa Rosa or Hobbs that houses inmates sent to the custody of the DOC).
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
DOC indicated there may be a minimal to moderate administrative burden placed on the De-
partment because it may have to provide certain information (such as the names of individuals on
probation or parole who have an arrest and hold order placed on them, etc.) to DFA to help DFA
verify the incarceration costs for purposes of helping DFA pay the incarceration costs to the
county. DOC pledged to make every reasonable effort to absorb this administrative burden
without adding new staff, but indicated it is difficult to determine the exact amount of adminis-
trative burden placed on the department by this bill. The bill could increase the administrative
costs associated with the department working with DFA to help DFA verify and process the
county’s bills, and these costs could be significant. There is no appropriation in the bill to the
department to help offset or absorb these increased administrative costs.
DFA indicated the appropriation would be administered by LGD/DFA as a reimbursable expen-
diture. Currently, LGD administers grants and other monies to counties on a reimbursable basis
and has a process in place to do this.
pg_0003
Senate Bill 732 – Page
3
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
SB732 relates to HB735, HB777 and several other bills that would appropriate funds to counties
for the cost of housing state prisoners or prisoners under other definitions.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
DFA noted that detention costs for counties increase rapidly from year to year. According to
DFA, state law violators are individuals who:
1) have violated parole or are charged with a parole violation;
2) while on parole, are charged with a violation of local, state, tribal, federal or international law;
3) are awaiting transportation and commitment to the corrections department following the pro-
nouncement of a judgment, sentence or an order of confinement;
4) are charged with a violation of probation by the corrections department or by a district court;
5) are sentenced ordered or removed by the district court to incarceration in a county detention
facility for a felony conviction;
6) are incarcerated on the basis of an arrest-and-hold order on a warrant issued by the corrections
department.
ALTERNATIVES
DOC suggested one alternative is to use a more global approach that has the potential to help all
of the county facilities (such as the approach used in HB 264 and SB 419) instead of trying to
help just one county.
Another alternative might be to consider language consistent with that in other similar bills of-
fered by other counties whereby the county would be reimbursed for the costs of housing
individuals charged with or convicted of a violation of state law who:
(1) have violated parole or are charged with a parole violation;
(2) while on parole, are charged with a violation of local, state, tribal, federal or interna-
tional law;
(3) are awaiting transportation and commitment to the corrections department following
the pronouncement of a judgment, sentence or an order of confinement;
(4) are charged with a violation of probation by the corrections department or by a district
court;
(5) are sentenced, ordered or removed by the district court to incarceration in a county de-
tention facility for a felony conviction; or
(6) are incarcerated on the basis of an arrest-and-hold order on a warrant issued by the
Corrections Department.
Another alternative would be to amend the bill with broader language, i.e. “for Colfax County
incarceration expenses.”
DH/mt