BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1435|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1435
Author: Evans (D)
Amended: 7/6/05 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/28/05
AYES: Dunn, Morrow, Ackerman, Cedillo, Figueroa, Kuehl
NO VOTE RECORDED: Escutia
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-29, 6/2/05 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Courthouse construction funds
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill makes several technical amendments to
the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (TCFA), including
correction of technical errors, clarification of the
appropriate use of courthouse construction funds, and
simplification of the process for modifying the
distribution of penalty assessments for the benefit of the
courthouse construction fund. This bill provides that
certain uses of a county's Courthouse Construction Fund,
which was established prior to passage of the TCFA, are
declaratory of existing law.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes each county to
establish in the county treasury a Courthouse Construction
CONTINUED
AB 1435
Page
2
Fund (CCF) to receive penalties collected by the counties
from fines for criminal offenses for the purpose of
assisting the county in the acquisition, rehabilitation,
construction, and financing of courtrooms or of a courtroom
building or buildings containing facilities used by the
justice system. [Section 76100 of the Government Code]
Existing law, the TCFA, requires counties to make reports
to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and to the
Department of Finance (DOF) for the receipt and expenditure
of those funds, and provides that expenditures for other
purposes than specifically permitted are to be repaid.
This bill clarifies that CCFs may also be used for court
facilities or excess court facilities in the same manner
and that this is declarative of existing law.
This bill requires the Judicial Council of California, on
or before January 1, 2007, and on or before January 1,
thereafter, to submit a report on county receipts and
expenditures in connection with these funds to the
Legislature.
Existing law governing the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund specifies that the penalty distribution
established for a local CCF will change each time a county
facility is transferred to the state. Existing law, the
TCFA, allows for the transfer of facilities from county to
the state on a facility-to-facility basis.
This bill requires the change in penalty assessment
distribution to occur only once per year for all facilities
that transfer in a given county.
This bill makes other technical, conforming amendments.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/05)
Judicial Council of California (source)
California State Association of Counties
County of Fresno
CONTINUED
AB 1435
Page
3
County of Placer
County of Sacramento
County of Tulare
State Association of County Auditors
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Judicial Council is sponsoring
this bill to correct what has surfaced as an interpretation
of Section 76100 of the Government Code that is
inconsistent with the negotiations that have occurred for
the transfer of court facilities from county to state under
the TCFA.
The TCFA requires the AOC and the Director of DOF to audit
a county's CCF to determine whether expenditures from the
fund were consistent with Section 76100 of the Government
Code. Any inappropriate expenditure is to be repaid to the
State Court Facilities Construction Fund. Apparently,
during audits of CCF expenditures and the development of
procedures for the Administrative Director's review of
future expenditures, staff of the AOC determined that
Section 76100, if interpreted narrowly, unnecessarily
restricts the use of the CCF. In the AOC's view, 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. The broader interpretation allows use of CCFs
for these limited purposes, in addition to acquisition,
rehabilitation, construction or financing of court
buildings. The AOC regards this broader interpretation as
the legislative intent when Section 76100 was enacted in
the first place, and has used this interpretation in its
negotiations with the counties for the transfer of court
facilities to the state.
For example, Contra Costa County built a parking structure
with CCF funds even though only a portion of the parking
structure would be used by the courts. Under existing law,
the entire cost of the parking structure could be charged
back to the county since the expenditure would not have
been allowable under the current language of Section 76100.
Under the less restrictive interpretation of Section 76100
(which Judicial Council and the counties use) the county
fouls be charged back for the cost of the parking structure
CONTINUED
AB 1435
Page
4
less the portion of the cost attributable to the courts'
use of the parking structure. (A proposed amendment would
ensure that the state or the CCF funds does not pay the
entire cost of that structure or other structures similarly
paid for.) Another example is Sonoma County's Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrade costs for the front
counter at the courthouse. Since the ADA compliance
project will not fit directly into the language of Section
76100 (i.e., it is not a renovation or rehabilitation of
the building, just the counter), the county could be
charged back the cost of the ADA upgrade even though the
project is clearly the responsibility of and benefits only
the court.
The Judicial Council states that there are a number of
projects just like the above that could cause liability on
the counties' part, but could easily be negotiated in the
context of the transfer of facilities from county to state,
when the less restrictive interpretation of Section 76100
is applied.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Baca, Bass, Berg, Bermudez, Calderon,
Canciamilla, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Coto, De La Torre,
Dymally, Evans, Frommer, Goldberg, Hancock, Harman,
Jerome Horton, Jones, Karnette, Klehs, Koretz, Laird,
Leno, Levine, Lieber, Liu, Matthews, Montanez, Mullin,
Nation, Nava, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Parra, Pavley,
Richman, Ridley-Thomas, Ruskin, Saldana, Salinas,
Torrico, Tran, Umberg, Vargas, Wolk, Yee, Nunez
NOES: Aghazarian, Benoit, Blakeslee, Bogh, Cogdill,
Daucher, DeVore, Emmerson, Garcia, Haynes, Shirley
Horton, Houston, Huff, Keene, La Malfa, La Suer, Leslie,
Maze, McCarthy, Mountjoy, Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia,
Sharon Runner, Spitzer, Strickland, Villines, Walters,
Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gordon
RJG:mel 8/16/05 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
AB 1435
Page
5
**** END ****
CONTINUED