fag
mu IF

.
I


 

 
   

Hoar?! a! State and {Humanity i'ferraetinns Frau Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Hercut Drive, Sacramento, [3195311 IJl?ls?ul?' Linda M. Planner
brawn-351?. Kathleen T. Howard
915321331? 

hrs-"innr-jegnv

December 12, 2013

Mark Pazin, Sheriff

Merced County Sheriff's Department
2222 Street

Merced, CA 95340

Dear Sheriff Pazin:

SB 1022 CONSTRUCTION OF ADULT LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES
PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: A06-13

Thank you for Merced County?s SB 1022 Adult Local Criminal Justice Facilities proposal and
presentation to the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) on December 4, 2013 as part of the
Request for Proposals (RFP) process. We regret to inform you that your county?s proposed
project will not be recommended to receive a conditional funding award.

The ESC reviewed the written proposal in advance of the county presentation, heard county
testimony, and formally rated the proposal. The ratings were done according to the rating
factors approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) as identified in the
RFP.

Additionally, the SB 1022 legislation requires that funding preference shall be given to counties
that are most prepared to proceed successfully with this financing in a timely manner. As
defined in the RFP, the determination of preparedness to proceed shall include, but not be
limited to, documentation of adequate county contribution funds (mandatory criterion); initial
real estate due diligence package submittal (optional criterion); documentation evidencing
CEQA compliance (optional criterion); and, authorization to execute the financing program
project documents (optional criterion). The funding preference criteria associated with each
county?s proposal submission was evaluated independently of the proposal itself by the
Department of Finance and the Department of General Services. Satisfaction of preference
criteria was determined by these agencies.

Attached is a summary table of your county?s facility construction proposal package. This
shows overall preference criteria satisfied, and ESC ratings with comparison data for other
proposals in like-sized counties.

Proposal Identification Number: A06-13
SB1022 Construction of Adult Local Criminal Justice Facilities
Page 2

Also attached is a summary table showing all of the counties? proposal ratings and number of
preference criteria satisfied. Thirty-six counties requested $1,317,523,500 of an available
$500,000,000 in SB-1022 Adult Local Criminal Justice Facilities construction funding.
Unfortunately the available dollars could only fully fund 12 counties and partially fund 3
coun?es.

Funding recommendations (ESC ratings combined with total preference criteria satisfied) will
be provided to the BSCC Board as an action item for funding consideration at its meeting on
January 16, 2014. It is anticipated this meeting will start at 10 am. in Los Angeles at a
location that will be posted on the BSCC website.

If you have any questions or need more information at this time, please feel free to contact
BSCC staff (916-445-5073) or me.
Sincerely,


.: (#4;th 

 

Gary Wion, Deputy Director
Facilities Standards and Operations Division

Attachments

cc: Kathleen T. Howard, Executive Director
Sebastian Cosentino, Project Director
Greg Sullivan, Project Contact (email)
Lisa Cardella-Presto, Financial Officer (email)
Dana S. Hertfelder, Construction Administrator (email)

SB 1022 ADULT LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

BOARD OF STATE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

PROPOSAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: A06-13

ATTACHMENT 1

SB 1022 Preference Review Summary
for Merced County
As determined Number of
Criterion #1 Criterion #2 Criterion #3 Al?lrilgerIZIZII?Iif: of Preference
Funding Real Estate Due Diligence CEQA Project Documents 

 

 

NOTE:

first within each set-aside.

Per the SB 1022 Request for Proposals, counties that satis?ed the preference criteria are awarded

Criterion #1 Comments: This proposal lacked the necessary documentation evidencing the funds for

the county cash contribution have been set-aside solely for use on the proposed project.

proposal still requires the issuance of Certificates of Participation.

Criterion #3 Comments: This proposal did not include the required Board of Supervisors resolution
language or the appropriate documentation.

SB 1022 County Proposal Evaluation Results

for Merced County
as determined by ESC

 

This

 

Offender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

County Scope of Work Managgement Budget Review Total Score
Programming
Possible 250 200 250 100 200 1 ,000
Maximum 195.9 164.1 204.0 81.7 156.1 795.1
Average 177.1 135.7 182.2 77.4 144.2 728.0
Minimum 155.2= 129.2 163.9 68.1 12.1 669.7
Merced 172.7 135.7 165.2 68.1 143.2 684.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOF - Department of Finance
DGS - Department of General Services

ESC - Board of State Community Corrections SB-1022 Executive Steering Committee

DNS - Did not submit
- Not applicable

 

 

BOARD OF STATE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

SB 1022 ADULT LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
RECOMMENDATION
December 12, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL EVALUATION RESULTS RECOMMENDED AWARD
Status
Project Count Requested Preference ESC Recommended 
Rank Amount Criteria Rating Type Amount
Small County ($100,000,000 Set-Aside)
1 Tuolumne $20,000,000 4 803.0 Full $20,000,000
2 Napa $13,474,000 3 793.4 Full $13,474,000
3 Kings $20,000,000 3 735.3 Full $20,000,000
4 Shasta $20,000,000 3 690.2 Full $20,000,000
5 Lake $20,000,000 3 674.0 Full $20,000,000
6 Tehama $20,000,000 2 728.3 Partial $6,526,000
7 Madera $19,000,000 2 588.8
8 Humboldt $17,855,500 0 757.1
9 Trinity $15,606,000 0 747.0
10 Mendocino $10,259,000 0 702.3
11 Modoc $7,514,000 0 687.4
12 Colusa $15,252,000 0 684.8
13 Imperial $17,643,000 0 636.6
14 Glenn $13,759,000 0 591.6
15 Del Norte $9,193,000 0 579.6
Medium County ($160,000,000 Set-Aside)
1 Santa Cruz $24,635,000 4 795.1 Full $24,635,000
2 Santa Barbara $38,976,000 4 755.4 Full $38,976,000
3 Solano $23,037,000 4 746.4 Full $23,037,000
4 Tulare $40,000,000 4 729.4 Full $40,000,000
5 San Joaquin $40,000,000 4 686.5 Partial $33,352,000
6 Butte $40,000,000 3 776.7
7 Stanislaus $40,000,000 3 765.4
8 Yolo $39,880,000 0 706.8
9 Sonoma $24,000,000 0 691.9
10 Merced $40,000,000 0 684.9
11 Monterey $22,757,000 0 669.7
Large County ($240,000,000 Set-Aside)
1 San Mateo $24,374,000 4 792.8 Full $24,374,000
2 Orange $80,000,000 3 704.3 Full $80,000,000
3 Fresno $79,194,000 2 728.3 Full $79,194,000
4 Sacramento $80,000,000 2 687.2 Partial $56,432,000
5 San Bernardino $80,000,000 0 812.3
6 Riverside $80,000,000 0 748.9
7 San Francisco $80,000,000 0 702.3
8 Contra Costa $80,000,000 0 687.9
9 Ventura $41,115,000 0 677.6
10 Los Angeles $80,000,000 0 584.8

 

 

 

 

 

Per the SB 1022 Request for Proposals, counties that satis?ed the preference criteria are awarded ?rst within each set-aside.

Status column shown for future use only.