BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    


          |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


           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  

          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  


                                                                      SB 75

             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  

          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  

                   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  


                                                                      SB 75

          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  

                   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  

                   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

                   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  

                   Adding reporting requirements regarding mandatory  
                supervision and post release community supervision  

                   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

                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  

                   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  

          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

             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  ****