BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 140 (Fuentes)
Hearing Date: 6/27/2011 Amended: 4/6/2011
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: Not applicable
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 140, an urgency measure, would appropriate
$232,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice to
pay two claims. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts
required for payment of these claims shall revert to the General
Fund.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Appropriation $232 General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Pursuant to the committee's rules, the Suspense File rule does
not apply to the provisions of this bill as judgments and
settlement are considered valid obligations of the state.
Additionally, judgments and settlements may have time
sensitivity.
The claims are:
Shaw v. Chaing, et. al.
Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 07CS01179
$167,000 to pay attorney's fees and costs
This case involves appropriations of gasoline sales tax revenue
known as "spillover revenue." Historically, this revenue was
transferred from the Retail Sales Tax Fund to the Public
Transportation Account, a trust fund that by statutory
initiative is dedicated to "transportation planning and mass
transportation purposes" pursuant to Public Utilities Code
99310.5.
Beginning in 2001, and each fiscal year thereafter, the
AB 140 (Fuentes)
Page 1
Legislature amended Revenue and Taxation Code 7102 (a) (1) to
instead transfer all or part of these spillover revenues to
funds other than the Public Transportation Account. The Court
of Appeal concluded this practice was unconstitutional and
invalidated related appropriations. The court found that
Petitioner Shaw was entitled to $146,977.50, plus interest, for
fees and costs.
Lord, et al. v. Schwarzenegger et. al.
San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CPF-09-509770
$65,000 to pay a settlement
This case involves a constitutional challenge to Chapter 12/2009
(AB 12x4, Budget Committee), a budget trailer bill, for
violation of the single-subject and title clauses of Article IV,
Section 9 of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs prevailed,
and a judgment was issued declaring that Section 12 of AB 12x4,
which amended Government Code Section 22877 to eliminate the
Rural Healthcare Equity Program for qualifying state employees,
was stricken from law.
After judgment, plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees, arguing
that the litigation conferred a significant benefit on the
public, there was necessity for private enforcement of the
constitutional provision, and the advancement of the public
benefit was not coincidental to the attainment of any personal
goals and was not self-serving. Plaintiff Lord's initial demand
was for approximately $90,000. The matter was settled for
$64,583.50.