BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 75|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 75
Author: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
Amended: 6/12/13
Vote: 21
PRIOR SENATE VOTES NOT RELEVANT
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Courts
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides statutory changes necessary to
enact the Judicial Branch provisions of the Budget Act of 2013.
Assembly Amendments delete intent language related to Budget Act
of 2013.
ANALYSIS : This bill makes all of the following statutory
changes:
1. Court-ordered debt collection . Courts, or, in some
instances, counties on behalf of courts, may choose to
utilize the state's Tax Intercept Program, operated by the
Franchise Tax Board (FTB) with participation by the State
Controller's Office (SCO), to intercept tax refunds, lottery
winnings, and unclaimed property from individuals who are
delinquent in paying fines, fees, assessments, surcharges, or
restitution ordered by the court. Existing law allows FTB
CONTINUED
SB 75
Page
2
and SCO to require the court to obtain and provide the social
security number of a debtor prior to running the intercept.
This bill provides that courts are no longer required to
provide such social security numbers to FTB. Instead, FTB
and SCO are required to use their existing legal authority to
obtain social security numbers from the Department of Motor
Vehicles. This change will reduce court costs associated
with attempting to obtain social security numbers from
debtors.
2. Small claims mailing fee . This bill increases the fee charged
for mailing a plaintiff's claim to each defendant in a small
claims action from $10 to $15, to cover the cost of postal
rate increases that have occurred over the past few years.
The increased fee is estimated to generate $200,000 in
additional revenue.
3. Trial court reserves/cash management . This bill includes
changes to help trial courts operationalize the new reserve
policy that goes into effect at the end of the 2013-13 fiscal
year and mitigate cash flow concerns, by:
Specifying that court reporting fees collected for
proceedings lasting less than an hour be distributed to
the court in which it was collected.
Clarifying that each trial court's funding allocation
be offset by the amount of reserves in excess of the
amount allowable (1%).
Allowing the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
to transfer funds to the Trial Court Trust Funds, from
other court funds (State Court Facilities Construction
Fund, Immediate and Critical Needs Account, Judicial
Branch Workers' Comp Fund), if the cash balance is
insufficient to support trial court operations. The
total amount of the outstanding loan cannot exceed
$150,000,000.
Exempts certain funds from being included in the
calculation of the 1% balance in unexpended funds that
trial courts can carry-over from one fiscal year to the
next.
SB 75
Page
3
4. Elimination of the sunset for public presentation of trial
court budgets . AB 973 (Campos, Chapter 687, Statutes of
2011) required each trial court, until January 1, 2017, prior
to adopting a budget plan for the fiscal year, to provide the
public with notice of, and an opportunity for input on, the
trial court's proposed budget. This bill eliminates that
sunset date.
5. Exemplification of a record fee . Exemplification involves a
triple certification attesting to the authenticity of a copy
of a record by the clerk and the presiding judicial officer
of the court for use as evidence by a court or other entity
outside of California. This bill increases the fee for this
certification from $20 to $50. The increased fee is
estimated to generate $165,000 in additional revenue.
6. Community Corrections Performance Incentive Act, SB 678 (Leno
and Benoit, Chapter 608, Statutes of 2009) . This bill makes
various amendments to the Community Corrections Performance
Incentive Act, including:
Requiring the AOC to collect additional data on the
felony probation population relating to the number of
Penal Code Section 1170(h) convictions.
Revising the probation failure rate calculation so
that it includes revocations resulting in county jail
incarceration.
Adding a third tier of performance incentive payments
for counties that demonstrate improved felony probation
outcomes, but that still have combined probation failure
rates above the 2006 through 2008 baseline statewide
average.
Extending the $200,000 minimum payment to counties
performing better than the statewide average.
Making payments to counties that did not improve upon
outcomes, contingent on those counties providing plans on
how they will improve.
Specifying that the new data elements are required
after January 1 2012.
SB 75
Page
4
Eliminating references to providing information to
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Adding mandatory supervision and post release
community supervision to the definitions of community
corrections and local supervision.
Specifying that, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, moneys deposited into a county's Community
Corrections Performance Incentive Fund, for implementing a
community corrections program, be made available to the
chief probation officer within 30 days of the moneys being
deposited.
Adding reporting requirements regarding mandatory
supervision and post release community supervision
populations.
Allowing the Department of Finance, in developing a
revised formula for allocation of Community Performance
Incentive Act funding, to take into account mandatory
supervision and post release community supervision failure
to prison rates.
Appropriating $1 million from the State Community
Corrections Performance Incentive Fund to the judicial
branch for the costs of implementing and administering
this program.
7. Court audit contracting . A trailer bill associated with the
2011 Budget Act included contracting requirements for the
Judicial Branch. Most notably, the Judicial Branch was then
required to follow essentially the same requirements that
apply to state agencies. The Judicial Council and trial
courts were also required to adopt contracting manuals that
mirror the Public Contract Code and are similar to other
related state policies. The new law also requires the AOC to
report, twice annually, to the Legislature and State Auditor,
regarding procurement and contracting practices. Lastly, the
State Auditor was required to establish an audit program to
be funded by the entity being audited. This bill:
Specifies that audits of the AOC, the Habeas Corpus
SB 75
Page
5
Resource Center, the Supreme Court, and the appellate
courts shall commence on or before July 1, 2013.
Specifies that each judicial branch entity pay the
State Auditor for costs of audits.
Reduces the number of audits to five occurring on a
biennial basis and continues the biennial audit of the
AOC.
Modifies statute to make the court's contracting audit
program a more selective, risk-based audit program.
8. Trial court efficiencies: court-appointed dependency
counsel . Existing law states that parents will not be
required to reimburse the court for court-appointed counsel
services in dependency cases if (1) such payments would
negatively impact the parent's ability to support their child
after the family has been reunified or (2) repayment would
interfere with an ongoing family reunification process.
Designated court staff currently have the authority to waive
payment in the first scenario, but are required to file a
petition for a court hearing to determine whether payment can
be waived in the second scenario. Under the proposed change,
court staff will be permitted to waive payments under the
second scenario, thereby eliminating the need for some court
hearings.
9. New Long Beach court building . The Long Beach courthouse
project is being completed through a
public-private-partnership arrangement. It is a four story,
one-block building, that includes 31 courts, parking, offices
for lease and retail space. The state takes possession of
the building on August 31, 2013 and begins 35 years of
payments, starting in September, of $34.8, rising to $54.2
million in fiscal year 2014-15 and then increasing annually
with an inflator. These payments pay for all costs (capital
and operating) related to the building for 35 years. This
bill requires the Judicial Council to perform an evaluation
of the project, compare it to other similar state run court
construction projects, evaluate the contractor, identify
costs encountered during the project that were not identified
in the value-for-money analysis, determine if the economic
analysis of the project has held, describe the major
SB 75
Page
6
challenges encountered throughout the project, assess the
cost effectiveness of the project, and full provide
disclosure of all final project costs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
AL:k 6/13/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****