BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1435
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1435 (Evans)
As Amended September 2, 2005
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-29|(June 2, 2005) |SENATE: |33-2 |(September 6, |
| | | | | |2005) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Clarifies the meaning of permissible uses in the
Courthouse Construction Fund (CCF) statute. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Stipulates that permissible uses of CCF would include the
acquisition, rehabilitation, construction and financing of
court facilities and are declarative of existing law.
2)Requires the Judicial Council (JC) to submit a report on
county receipts and expenditures in connection with these
funds to the Legislature, as specified.
The Senate amendments make chaptering out, technical and
clarifying changes. Further delete statutory rules pertaining
to court reporters in the County of Mendocino and require JC to
provide the transferring county with the right of first refusal
in the disposition of a facility.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the current version of the bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The sponsor, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors,
seeks to clarify the permissible uses of 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.
In support of this bill, the author writes,
AB 1435
Page 2
[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 JC 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 AOC large sums of money,
especially when counties contest the interpretive baseline of
AB 1435
Page 3
such audits". Similarly, 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: 0013182