BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1435
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 1435 (Evans) - As Introduced: February 22, 2005
As Proposed To Be Amended
SUBJECT : COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUND: PERMISSIBLE USES
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD CLARIFYING CHANGES BE MADE TO THE COURTHOUSE
CONSTRUCTION FUND ACT IN ORDER TO ASSIST THE TRANSFER OF COURTS
FROM THE COUNTIES TO THE STATE?
SYNOPSIS
This bill is sponsored by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
to clarify the meaning of permissible uses in the Courthouse
Construction Fund (CCF) statute. The sponsor seeks a
declaration from the Legislature that permissible uses should be
broadly construed. The Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) similarly agrees that a narrow interpretation
unnecessarily restricts the use of the CCF. All interested
parties agree that clarification is needed in order to properly
implement the Legislature's original intent and to make the
meaning of the statute consistent with the Legislature's
subsequently enacted statutes addressing CCFs. The author
points out that the needed clarification will resolve several
significant problems that exist, including the delay of court
transfers from counties to the state. The sponsor and other
interested parties are currently in serious and promising
discussions to develop language that will reflect the consensus
they are working toward.
SUMMARY : Clarifies the meaning of permissible uses in the
Courthouse Construction Fund statute. Specifically, this bill
stipulates that permissible uses of the Courthouse Construction
Fund would include the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction
and financing of court facilities.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies the uses of the Courthouse Construction Fund to
assist any county in the acquisition, rehabilitation,
construction and financing of courtrooms and related buildings
AB 1435
Page 2
and in conjunction therewith allows counties to use the CCF to
rehabilitate existing courtrooms and related buildings.
(Government Code Section 76100. All further references are to
this code unless otherwise noted.)
2)Establishes the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 in order to
provide the judiciary with the responsibility for all of its
functions related to court facilities. (Section 70301.)
3)Requires counties to report to the Administrative Director of
the Courts and Director of Finance on all receipts and
expenditures made under the Courthouse Construction Fund Act.
(Section 70403.)
4)Establishes the Court Facilities Dispute Resolution Committee,
with specified membership to hear and determine disputes
between a county and the Judicial Council regarding the
appropriateness of expenditures from a local courthouse
construction fund. (Section 70303.)
5)Provides the framework and scope of negotiations required
between the Judicial Council and counties concerning the
transfer of court facilities from the counties to the state.
(Section 70321, et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print, this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The sponsor, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,
seeks to clarify the permissible uses of the Courthouse
Construction Fund, in order to ensure that negotiations between
the AOC, the California State Association of Counties and
counties, regarding the transfer of court facilities from
counties to the state are consistent with the governing statute.
In support of the bill, the author writes,
[w]hen the legislature created the Courthouse Construction
Fund in 1991, it stipulated that they were established 'for
the purpose of assisting any county in acquisition,
rehabilitation, construction, and financing of courtrooms
or a courtroom building or buildings containing facilities
necessary or incidental to the operation of the justice
system.' This language implies a broad range of
AB 1435
Page 3
permissible uses for which these funds can be used.
After more than a decade of being under the direct control
and supervision of local county boards of supervisors,
however, the state has moved to narrow the scope of
permissible expenditures of these funds. Acting under the
retroactive audit authority provided by the Trial Court
Facilities Act of 2002, the AOC has interpreted that
permissible expenditures apply only to courtroom
improvements.
All Interested Parties Agree That Clarification Is Needed In
Order To Resolve Significant Problems. The Legislature is
requested to specify the meaning of the enabling statute, which
is now called into question through the interactions of the
interested parties. The sponsor states that the language
adopted by the Legislature in the statute "implies a broad range
of permissible uses for which these funds can be used" and upon
which the counties have relied. Similarly, while the AOC states
that a literal reading of the statute supports the narrow
interpretation, they agree that a narrow interpretation,
"unnecessarily restricts the use of the CCF."
The interested parties agree that the clarification of
permissible uses is needed and will avert conflict between the
Administrative Office of the Courts and the county governments
that have acted in good faith under the terms of the 1991 law.
In addition, the sponsor points out that clarification would
also relieve the Court Facilities Dispute Resolution Committee
from exceeding its mandate by having to interpret the meaning of
the statute governing permissible uses of Courthouse
Construction Funds.
All interested parties acknowledge that the transfer of the
county courts to the Judicial Council is being delayed because
of the lack of clarity on permissible uses. As the author
points out, "no county wants to open itself up to a retroactive
state audit only to become obligated to reimburse the AOC large
sums of money, especially when counties contest the interpretive
baseline of such audits". Similarly, the AOC notes that "the
narrow interpretation is not consistent with negotiations that
have occurred between the AOC, the California State Association
of Counties, and counties regarding the transfer of court
facilities from counties to the state."
AB 1435
Page 4
Broad Meaning Of Permissible Uses Will Provide Counties With
Financial Certainty. Counties have undertaken expenditures for
the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction and financing
based on their broad reading of the CCF statute. As expressed
by the sponsor, counties have grave concerns about the statewide
application of a narrow standard since it would result in
"non-conforming expenditures, dating back to 1998, having to be
paid to the State when court stewardship duties are transferred
to the State." The sponsor correctly points out that, "at a
time when local governments are already strapped for funds, this
is a major source of financial uncertainty for county
governments." The sponsor further notes that "in order to cope,
Sonoma County is setting aside funds on the chance that they
will need to reimburse the AOC. This takes funds away from
being invested in courthouse maintenance today."
Author's Proposed Technical Amendments : In order to move
forward as the parties' dialog progresses, the author
appropriately proposes to amend the bill as follows:
1)Page 2, line 8, after set forth: insert in this subdivision
and
2)Page 2, after line 34, add new paragraph to read: (e) The
amendment to subdivision (a) made in 2005 is declarative of
existing law and shall be used for any determinations under
section 70403(c).
Author's Additional Amendment : In order to ensure that the
Legislature is adequately informed about the financial issues
addressed in this legislation, the author has agreed to amend
the bill as follows to contain a reporting mechanism to reflect
all relevant receipts and expenditure information that counties
are currently required to provide to the AOC.
On page 2, after line 34, insert new paragraph:
Add subsection (d) To Section 70403 to read:
(d) On or before January 1, the Judicial Council shall submit a
report to the Budget and Fiscal Committees of the Legislature on
the information received from counties pursuant to this section.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 1435
Page 5
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (sponsor)
Judicial Council of California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Cynthia Alvillar / JUD. / (916) 319-2334