BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1435
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1435 (Evans)
As Amended April 19, 2005
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 8-1 APPROPRIATIONS 13-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Harman, Evans, |Ayes:|Chu, Bass, Berg, |
| |Laird, Leslie, Levine, | |Calderon, Mullin, |
| |Lieber, Montanez | |Karnette, Klehs, Leno, |
| | | |Nation, Oropeza, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Saldana, |
| | | |Yee |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Haynes |Nays:|Sharon Runner, Emmerson, |
| | | |Haynes, Nakanishi, |
| | | |Walters |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Clarifies the meaning of permissible uses in the
Courthouse Construction Fund (CCF) statute. Specifically, this
bill stipulates that permissible uses of the CCF would include
the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction and financing of
court facilities and are declarative of existing law. Requires
the Judicial Council (JC) to submit a report on county receipts
and expenditures in connection with these funds to the
Legislature, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations staff,
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.
COMMENTS : The sponsor, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,
seeks to clarify the permissible uses of the CCF, in order to
ensure that negotiations between JC through the Administrative
Office of the Courts (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.
AB 1435
Page 2
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 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.
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."
All interested parties agree that the clarification of
permissible uses is needed and will avert conflict between AOC
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 CCFs.
All interested parties acknowledge that the transfer of the
county courts to the Judicial Council is being delayed because
AB 1435
Page 3
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."
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."
Analysis Prepared by : Cynthia Alvillar / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0010575