BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1407|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1407
Author: Perata (D), et al
Amended: 8/29/08
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-1, 5/6/08
AYES: Romero, Margett, Cedillo, Perata
NOES: Cogdill
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-0, 5/13/08
AYES: Corbett, Kuehl, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman, Ackerman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-0, 5/22/08
AYES: Torlakson, Cox, Ashburn, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez,
Kuehl, Oropeza, Simitian, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Aanestad, Dutton, Ridley-Thomas, Runner,
Wyland
SENATE FLOOR : 28-8, 5/29/08
AYES: Alquist, Ashburn, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett,
Correa, Cox, Ducheny, Florez, Harman, Kehoe, Kuehl,
Lowenthal, Machado, Maldonado, Margett, Migden, Oropeza,
Padilla, Perata, Ridley-Thomas, Romero, Scott, Simitian,
Steinberg, Vincent, Wiggins, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Battin, Denham, Hollingsworth,
McClintock, Runner, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cogdill, Dutton, Negrete McLeod,
Torlakson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 45-20, 8/29/08 - See last page for vote
CONTINUED
SB 1407
Page
2
SUBJECT : Court facilities: financing: fees
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill allows the issuance of up to $5
billion in lease-revenue bonds to finance the construction
of critical needs courthouse construction projects, and
supports the debt service for the bonds by raising
specified criminal and civil fees and fines.
Assembly Amendments (1) deleted the $61,584,000
appropriation from the State Court Facilities Construction
Fund (SCFCF), (2) authorized the Judicial Council (JC) to
conduct audits of the collection of fees to be transmitted
to the state to be deposited in the Immediate and Critical
Needs Account (ICNA) of the SCFCF, as specified, (3)
required the JC to make recommendations for projects, (4)
deleted the $40 additional fee upon conviction for a
criminal offense and, instead, provided for an additional
assessment, (5) authorized the JC to acquire sites for the
replacement of deficient court facilities in four specific
counties and appropriated $61,584,000, as specified, from
the SCFCF to the JC, (6) deleted the provision exempting
from existing law the $15,000 aggregate for the planning,
design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation,
replacement or acquisition of a court facility, as
specified, (7) required moneys remaining in the ICNA to be
transferred for deposit into the State Trial Court
Operations Trust Fund, (8) added double-jointing langue,
(9) removed the urgency clause, (10) added co-authors, and
(11) stated the intent of the Legislature to establish a
moratorium on increases in filing fees until January 1,
2012, and provided that civil, probate and family law
filing fees may not be changed before that date.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Trial Court Facilities Act of
2002, establishes the SCFCF and provides that moneys in
that fund may be used to acquire, rehabilitate, construct,
or finance court facilities, as defined, and to implement
trial court projects in designated counties, as specified.
Existing law provides that the JC, as the policymaking body
SB 1407
Page
3
for the judicial branch, shall have certain
responsibilities and authorities with regard to court
facilities, including to conduct audits of the collection
of fees by the local courts, and to establish and consult
with local project advisory groups on the construction of
new trial court facilities.
Existing law specifies various uniform fees for filing
specified documents in connection with certain civil
proceedings, including a fee schedule for filing a first
petition or first account in connection with a trust or
estate. Existing law also imposes a fee of $20 upon every
conviction for a criminal offense, other than parking
offenses, for funding of court security, and a fee of $10
for corrections of violations of license, registration, or
mechanical requirements of the Vehicle Code. Supplemental
penalties and fees are imposed upon specified parking
offenses and persons ordered to attend traffic violator
school. Existing law specifies the disposition of fines
and forfeitures, and traffic violator fees, collected by
the courts for crimes other than parking violations.
This bill allows for the issuance of revenue bonds to fund
construction of court facilities and increases fees and
fines to support those bonds. Specifically, this bill:
1. Provides that money in the SCFCF shall only be used for
the planning, design, construction, rehabilitation,
renovation, replacement, leasing, or acquisition of
court facilities.
2. Establishes the ICNA of the SCFCF, the proceeds of which
can only be used for the following:
A. Planning, design, construction, rehabilitation,
renovation, replacement, or acquisition of court
facilities.
B. Repayment for moneys appropriated for lease of
court facilities pursuant to the issuance of
lease-revenue bonds.
C. Payment for lease or rental of court facilities,
including those made for facilities in which one or
SB 1407
Page
4
more private sector participants undertake some of
the risks associated with the financing, design,
construction, or operation of the facility.
3. States the intent of the Legislature that money in the
ICNA shall be used in part to pay the debt service of
lease-revenue bonds, notes, bond anticipation notes, or
other appropriate financial instruments in an amount up
to $5 billion to finance the planning, design,
construction, rehabilitation, renovation, replacement,
leasing, or acquisition of court facilities. Provides
that the total bond indebtedness may not exceed the
amount that the debt service of which can be satisfied
by revenue from fines and fees.
4. Establishes the State Trial Court Operations Trust Fund
(STCOTF) into which all money remaining in the ICNA, or
otherwise payable into that account, is to be
transferred after retirement of any bond indebtedness
incurred in connection with the immediate and critical
needs trial court projects. Provides that proceeds from
the STCOTF are available, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, only for trial court operations.
5. Provides that 25 percent of all money collected for the
SCFCF from any county shall be designated for
implementation of trial court projects in that county,
but this provision does not apply to money deposited in
the ICNA.
6. Requires the JC to be responsible for auditing the
collection of fees in the ICNA. Requires the JC to make
available information on the funds in the ICNA.
7. Requires the JC to consult with, among others, the
sheriffs and the criminal defense bar on construction of
court facilities, as specified.
8. Requires the JC to make recommendations to the Governor
and the Legislature for projects based on its
determination that the need for a project is most
immediate and critical using the then-most recent
version of the Prioritization Methodology for Trial
Court Capital-Outlay Projects. Requires the JC, when
SB 1407
Page
5
choosing which projects to recommend, to consider and
apply (a) any economic opportunity that exists for a
project, as defined, including free or reduced costs or
land for new construction, or financial contributions
from local government or private parties, and (b) the
effect on available resources of using public-private
partnerships.
9. Provides the JC is authorized to acquire sites in Butte,
Los Angeles, Tehama, and Yolo counties for replacement
of deficient court facilities.
10.Exempts money expended from the ICNA from submission to
the Corrections Standards Authority.
11.Increases the uniform fee for filing the first paper,
including the first paper on behalf of any plaintiff,
defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party, in
a civil action or proceeding, a Probate Code proceeding,
or a Family Code proceeding from $320 to $350, and
distributes, as specified, including $30 to the ICNA.
12.Increases the uniform fee for filing the first paper in
a limited civil case on behalf of the plaintiff or any
other party from $300 to $325, and in the case where the
amount demanded, excluding attorney's fees and costs, is
$10,000 or less, increases the uniform fee for filing
the first paper from $180 to $200, and distributes, as
specified, including $25 or $20, respectively, to the
ICNA.
13.Increases the filing fee for a notice of appeal to the
appellate division of the superior court in a limited
civil case from $300 to $325; the fee for filing a writ
petition within the original jurisdiction of the
appellate division of the superior court from $300 to
$325; if the amount demanded in the limited civil case,
excluding attorney's fees and costs, is $10,000 or less,
the filing fee for a writ or notice of appeal to the
appellate division of the superior court is increased
from $180 to $200; and distributes, as specified,
including $25 or $20, respectively, to the ICNA.
14.Increases the reduced filing fee for an action for
SB 1407
Page
6
monetary damages that falls within the monetary
jurisdiction of the small claims court, but the party is
statutorily prohibited from filing in small claims
court, from $165 to $176, distributed as specified.
15.Establishes a $250 filing fee for application to appear
as counsel pro hac vice (for out-of-state counsel) and
distributes that entire amount to the ICNA.
16.Increases the uniform filing fee for estates or trusts
and other cases brought under the Probate Code from $320
and $180 to $350 or $200, respectively, and is
distributed, as specified, including $30 or $20,
respectively, to the ICNA.
17.Increases fees for petitions, applications, or
oppositions concerning the internal affairs of a trust
not subject to a filing fee; petitions, applications, or
objections filed subsequent to specified probate
proceedings; and the first or subsequent petitions for
special letter of administration, as specified, from $40
to $200, $160 of which is distributed to ICNA.
18.Increases the fee for subsequent petitions in probate
proceedings, including estate, guardianship and
conservatorship proceedings, from $180 to $350, $170 of
which is distributed to ICNA.
19.States the intent of the Legislature to establish a
moratorium on increases in filing fees until January 1,
2012, and provides that civil, probate and family law
filing fees may not be changed before that date.
20.In order to ensure and maintain adequate funding for
court facilities, imposes an assessment of $30 on every
felony or misdemeanor criminal conviction and $35 for
every criminal infraction, including traffic offenses,
but not including parking offenses, and the amount
collected is to be deposited in the ICNA.
21.Increases the fee applied to corrections of violations
of license, registration or mechanical requirements of
the Vehicle Code from $10 to $25, with $15 distributed
to ICNA.
SB 1407
Page
7
22.Increases, for every parking offense where a parking
penalty, fine, or forfeiture is imposed, the state court
construction penalty from $1.50 to $4.50, and requires
that a specifically calculated amount is to be deposited
in the ICNA.
23.Increases the fee for a person ordered to traffic
violator school for a moving violation from the total
bail plus $24 to the total bail plus $49, and 62.5
percent of the amount collected is to be deposited in
the ICNA.
24.Provides, until January 1, 2012, that any increase in
any criminal fine, fee, reparation, reimbursement or
other cost, or any additional item to be added to those
costs, other than for restitution, as provided,
established by a statute taking effect after January 1,
2009, shall not be paid until after all other
reimbursable costs have been paid. Provides that the
criminal and traffic-related court-ordered debt task
force may recommend modification before January 1, 2012.
25.States that the California State Association of Counties
and the Administrative Office of the Courts jointly
commit to improving efforts to collect court-ordered
debt.
26.Provides that the provisions of this bill are severable.
27.Adds chaptering out language with respect to AB 1873
(Lieu) and SB 1177 (Ridley-Thomas).
Background
Court Facilities Transfers and Financing
The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (TCFA), SB 1732
(Escutia), Chapter 1082, Statutes of 2002, established a
process for the transfer of responsibility for court
facilities from the counties to the state, and for
calculating a court facilities payment (CFP) to be paid to
SB 1407
Page
8
the state for those facilities that transfer. SB 10
(Dunn), Chapter 444, Statutes of 2006, amended the TCFA to
allow the transfer of court facilities with a seismic level
V rating to the state so long as liability for all
earthquake-related damages remains with the counties to the
same extent as if the facilities had not transferred to the
state. AB 1491 (Jones), Chapter 9, Statutes of 2008,
revived and extended the deadline for facilities transfers
from June 30, 2007 to December 31, 2008. Across the
state's 58 counties, there are approximately 451 court
facilities to be transferred under the TCFA. As of April
9, 2008, 124 facilities have transferred.
The TCFA also established the SCFCF into which the revenues
from specified fees, fines, penalties, and surcharges are
deposited for purposes of acquiring, rehabilitating,
constructing, or financing court facilities. The TCFA
requires the JC to annually recommend to the Governor and
the Legislature the amount proposed to be spent for
projects paid for with money in the SCFCF.
In 2004, the JC approved the Trial Court Five-Year Capital
Outlay Plan (Capital Outlay Plan), which uses a systematic
methodology to rank necessary court facility improvements
statewide. The methodology prioritizes facilities projects
into five groups: immediate, critical, high, medium, and
low. The Capital Outlay Plan presents annual estimated
funding requirements to fund all proposed projects over a
10-year implementation period, with all projects being
completed at the end of the 10 years. In April 2007, the
JC adopted an updated the Capital Outlay Plan that includes
175 new construction, major renovation, and expansion
projects estimated to cost $9.8 billion in 2007 dollars.
Between 2003 and 2006, several pieces of legislation
regarding court facilities bond measures were introduced.
None of the measures made it through the Legislature.
Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005
(UCF)
The UCF was approved as part of the 2005-2006 Budget Act
and took effect on January 1, 2006 [AB 145 (Assembly Budget
Committee, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2005]. The UCF
SB 1407
Page
9
established statewide, uniform first paper and first
response paper fees at three graduated levels: (1) the
filing fee for limited civil cases where the demand is less
than or equal to $10,000 is $180, (2) the filing fee for
limited civil cases where the demand is greater than
$10,000, but less than or equal to $25,000 is $300, and (3)
the filing fee for unlimited civil cases is $320.
The UCF (1) consolidated the court security fee, $25 court
reporter fee, amended the cross-complaint fee, and AB 3000
(10 percent) surcharge as they relate to first paper filing
and response paper fees, and provides that the revenue is
included in the uniform civil fee, (2) included
distributions of $20, $25, and $35 for court facilities in
the consolidated filing fees, (3) established a new Equal
Access Fund distribution of $4.80 per filing fee, and (4)
consolidated fees for children's waiting rooms, dispute
resolution, judges' retirement, and law libraries into the
first paper fee. The UCF also increased fees in probate
and small claims court filings.
The UCF placed a moratorium on fee changes, except as
specified, through December 31, 2007.
This bill provides for the issuance of lease-revenue bonds,
in an amount up to $5 billion, financed by the sale of the
bonds and increased civil and criminal fees, fines, and
penalties, to address immediate and critical court
facilities needs.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 1491 (Jones), Chapter 9, Statutes of 2008 (GOV Sections
70321, 70363, 70374, 70402, and 70322) which passed the
Senate Floor with a vote of 34-0 on March 24, 2008:
1. Revives and extends the deadline for transfer of
responsibility for court facilities from the counties to
the state from June 30, 2007 to December 31, 2009.
2. Imposes a financial penalty, as specified, on those
counties that transfer their facilities between October
1, 2008 and March 31, 2009, and a different financial
penalty, as specified, on those counties that transfer
SB 1407
Page
10
their facilities between April 1, 2009 and December 31,
2009.
3. Provides a county a "safe harbor" - tolling period -
from the above financial penalties under specified
circumstances for facilities transfers between October
1, 2008 and December 31, 2008.
SB 10 (Dunn), Chapter 444, Statutes of 2006 (GOV Sections
70301, 70324, and 70351.5), which passed the Senate Floor
with a vote of 37-0 on August 31, 2006:
1. Revises the TCFA to allow buildings with a level V
seismic rating to transfer to the state so long as
liability for all seismic-related damage, replacement,
injury, and loss remains with the counties to the same
extent they would have if the responsibility for court
facilities had not transferred to the state until on or
after the earliest of the following: (a) the seismic
rating is improved, (b) the building no longer contains
court facilities, (c) 35 years passes from the date of
transfer of the facilities, or (d) the county has
complied with the conditions for relief from liability
contained in an agreement, as specified.
2. In the event of seismic-related damage or injury claims,
counties shall indemnify, defend, and hold the state
harmless, except as specified.
3. Requires a county, in the event that seismic-related
damages occur, to either make repairs or provide funds
to the state sufficient to make those repairs.
4. Authorizes counties and the JC to agree on a method to
address a seismic issue so that the state does not have
a financial burden greater than it would have had if the
court facilities initially transferred were facilities
in buildings rated as a level IV seismic rating.
5. Authorizes the California State Association of Counties,
the JC, and the Director of the Department of Finance to
agree to alternative methods for calculating the county
facilities payment amount to be used by any county
meeting the criteria set forth in those alternative
SB 1407
Page
11
methods.
6. Remains in effect until January 1, 2010.
SB 145 (Corbett), 2007-08 Session (GOV Sections 70321,
70374, 70402, and 70356.5) which passed the Senate Floor
with a vote of 37-0 on March 19, 2007, and is on the Senate
Inactive File :
1. Extends the deadline for the transfer of responsibility
for court facilities to December 31, 2008.
2. Requires that any transfer agreement executed on or
after January 1, 2008, and on or before June 30, 2008,
contain a requirement that the county pay a financial
penalty in addition to the CFP, as specified.
3. Provides that a county would not have to pay the
financial penalty if significant progress, as defined,
toward completing a transfer agreement was achieved by
January 1, 2008.
4. Provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a transfer agreement executed on or after July 1,
2008, will be subject to a financial penalty, in
addition to the CFP, calculated by the greater of two
methods.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1. Annual revenues from the new and increased fees are
estimated at approximately $280 million from 2009-10
through 2044-45, when all bonds are assumed to be
retired. (Actual revenues probably will increase
somewhat over time consistent with continued population
growth in the state.)
2. Estimated direct (pay-as-you-go) capital outlay costs
for preconstruction activities (site acquisition,
preliminary plans, and working drawings) are
approximately $850 million, to be incurred between
SB 1407
Page
12
2008-09 and 2014-15. Additionally, the JC anticipates
spending $40 million annually between 2009-10 and
2023-24 from the ICNA for smaller renovation projects at
existing facilities.
3. Estimated construction costs for up to 40 projects is
$4.3 billion. This total will be bond-funded, with debt
service repaid from ICNA revenues. When all projects
are completed, annual debt service is estimated at
approximately $290 million and ends in 2044-45.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/08)
Judicial Council of California (source)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Defense Counsel
California Judges Association
California State Association of Counties
California Women's Lawyers
City of Long Beach
Consumer Attorneys of California
Imperial County Department of Social Services
Regional Council of Rural Counties
San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Solano County Board of Supervisors
State Bar of California
The Superior Courts of the following counties: Alameda,
Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Lake, Los
Angeles, Mendocino, Orange, Sacramento, San Benito, San
Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta,
Siskiyou, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Ventura and Yolo
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/29/08)
Bruce Elkins Traffic School
California Association of Collectors
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Movie & Film Traffic School
California Public Defenders Association
California Teamsters
California Traffic Classes, Inc.
California Traffic Schools Association
SB 1407
Page
13
Cheap Traffic School
Comedy Traffic School
GoodByeTicket.com
Great Comedians Traffic School
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Improv TVS, Inc.
Interactive Educational Concepts, Inc.
National Traffic Safety Courses Inc.
Off My Record Traffic School
OneDayTrafficSchool.com
Open 365 Days-A-Year Traffic School
Pizza 4U Great Comedians Traffic School
Saturday & Evenings - Great Teachers 2 Traffic School
Simple Fast Fun Online Traffic School
Study At Home Program (traffic school)
Traffic Classes of America at Home
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The bill's sponsor, the Judicial
Council of California, writes:
"California's courthouses are in a spiraling state of
crisis. With the passage of [the TCFA, SB 10, and AB
1491], the state is now completing the process of taking
responsibility for all of California's 450 courthouses.
Many buildings which house California's courts are in a
critical state of disrepair and antiquated design.
Inadequate security has created dangerous conditions that
place children, jurors, witnesses, litigants, visitors, and
court employees at risk. Ninety percent of court
facilities need improvement to provide for:
- Safe and sufficient juror assembly space, courtrooms,
and deliberation rooms;
- Access for the disabled;
- Protection of all parties in family law disputes;
- Separation of victims, defendants, witnesses, and
families in criminal cases;
- Protection of children involved in custody, dependency,
criminal, and civil cases; and
SB 1407
Page
14
- Separate and secured hallways to protect both
defendants' right to a fair trial, and the safety of the
public, witnesses, judges, and staff.
"In addition, a number of functional, physical safety- and
security-related issues need to be addressed at many court
facilities. These issues include, but are not limited to,
fire and life safety systems; hazardous materials removal;
seismic retrofit issues; functioning heating, ventilation,
and cooling systems; and functioning elevators and
emergency evacuation systems.
"Without the necessary improvements in physical
infrastructure, the courts are in danger of losing their
ability to safely and effectively provide access to the
courts and to carry out justice."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : While opposition to specific
fines or fees has been discussed under the particular fine
or fee, above, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
objects to issuing any additional bonds - whether general
obligation or lease-revenue - when the state is already
facing almost $50 billion in bond debt and a significant
budget deficit. The Association believes that courthouse
construction should be budgeted from the general fund.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Beall, Berg, Brownley, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Huffman,
Jones, Karnette, Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber,
Lieu, Ma, Mendoza, Mullin, Nava, Nunez, Portantino,
Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Swanson, Torrico, Wolk,
Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, DeVore,
Duvall, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Horton, Houston, Huff,
Keene, Maze, Plescia, Silva, Smyth, Strickland, Villines,
Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Aghazarian, Benoit, Cook, Emmerson,
Garcia, Jeffries, La Malfa, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra,
SB 1407
Page
15
Sharon Runner, Solorio, Soto, Spitzer, Tran
RJG:mw 8/30/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****