BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1435
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 1435 (Evans) - As Amended: April 19, 2005
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:8-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Clarifies that the permissible uses of moneys in the
Courthouse Construction Fund (CCF) includes the acquisition,
rehabilitation, construction and financing of court
facilities.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to report to the fiscal
committees by January 1, 2007, and annually thereafter, on the
counties' accounting for all receipts and expenditures from
their CCFs.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown revenue loss to the state, potentially in the millions
of dollars, to the extent that an expanded definition of
allowable uses of moneys in counties' CCFs reduces the amount
of funds that eventually transfers to the state from CCFs.
2)Minor absorbable costs to the Judicial Council to compile
information submitted by the counties on their CCFs and report
to the Legislature.
COMMENTS
Background and Purpose . The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002
established procedures and funding mechanisms for transferring
responsibility for 451 court-related facilities from the
counties to the state. The transfer of facilities, pursuant to
negotiations between the courts and each county, must occur by
June 30, 2007. Moneys in each county's CCF, established in 1991,
AB 1435
Page 2
and which come from a portion of the revenues collected by the
courts for court-imposed penalties and forfeitures, is, by
statute, to be used for either of the following:
1)To rehabilitate existing courtrooms or an existing courtroom
building or buildings for other uses if a new courtroom or a
courtroom building or buildings are acquired, constructed, or
financed.
2)To acquire, rehabilitate, construct, or finance excess
courtrooms or an excess courtroom building or buildings, if
that excess is anticipated to be needed at a later time.
Upon transfer of any county's court facilities to the state, the
court facilities act requires that the balance of funds in a
county's CCF, other than that being used to pay bonded
indebtedness on court facilities, will also transfer to the
state. The facilities act provides that the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC) or the Department of Finance may
audit each county's Courthouse Construction Fund (CCF) and
notify a county that an expenditure made from the fund was not
consistent with the above provisions. The county must repay any
inappropriate expenditure to the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund (SCFCF). Beginning January 1, 2004, no county
may make an expenditure or encumber future funds from its CCF
without the approval of the AOC.
During audits of CCF expenditures and the development of
procedures for the AOC's review of future expenditures, AOC
staff determined that the CCF provisions, if interpreted
narrowly, unnecessarily restricts the use of the CCF. A literal
reading of the statute supports the narrow interpretation that
CCFs can only be used to renovate buildings being vacated by the
court or to build excess courtrooms or courthouses. According to
the AOC, the effect of this narrow interpretation is to make
most expenditures from CCFs inappropriate. In addition, the
parties agree that a 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. This bill is intended to
clarify the permissible uses of the CCF.
Though the expanded definition provided in the bill, as compared
to the strict interpretation currently in use, could result in a
loss of state revenues, given the above discussion, this
AB 1435
Page 3
approach appears to be reasonable.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081