BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2007-2008 Regular Session
SB 1407 S
Senator Perata B
As Amended April 28, 2008
Hearing Date: May 13, 2008 1
Various Codes 4
ADM:rm 0
7
SUBJECT
Court Facilities Financing: Bond; Fees
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that the State Public Works Board
may issue lease-revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation
notes in an amount not to exceed $5 billion to finance the
planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation,
replacement, leasing, or acquisition of court facilities.
The bill would require the Judicial Council 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 a specified
methodology.
This bill would establish, within the existing State Court
Facilities Construction Fund (SCFCF), the Immediate and
Critical Needs Account (ICNA), the proceeds of which could
only be used for: (1) the planning, design, construction,
rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, or acquisition of
court facilities; (2) repayment of moneys appropriated for
lease of court facilities pursuant to the issuance of
lease-revenue bonds; and (3) payment for lease or rental of
court facilities, including those made for facilities in
which one or more private sector participants undertake
some of the risks associated with the financing, design,
construction, or operation of the facility.
This bill would amend the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard
Fee Schedule Act of 2005, which took effect January 1,
(more)
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 2 of ?
2006, to increase first paper and first responsive paper
fees between $25 and $35, as specified. The $25-35
increased fees amounts would be deposited into the ICNA.
This bill would increase the court security fee on every
criminal conviction, including traffic offenses, but not
parking offenses, from $20 to $60. Two-thirds of the fees
collected would be deposited into the ICNA and one-third
into the SCFCF. The bill would add $2 for every parking
offense where a parking penalty, fine, or forfeiture is
imposed; a specified percentage of which would be deposited
in the ICNA. The bill would increase the Traffic Violator
School fee by $40, 62.5% of which would be deposited into
the ICNA.
This bill would take effect immediately as an urgency
statute.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to taken in
Senate Appropriations Committee.)
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
the state for those facilities that transfer. Senate Bill
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. Assembly Bill 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 State Court Facilities
Construction Fund (SCFCF) into which the revenues from
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 3 of ?
specified fees, fines, penalties, and surcharges are
deposited for purposes of acquiring, rehabilitating,
constructing, or financing court facilities. The TCFA
requires the Judicial Council (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 ten years. In April 2007, the
JC adopted an updated 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. (See
Comment 6.)
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 January 1, 2006. (AB 145, Committee on
Budget, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2005.) The UCF 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 and cross-complaint fee, and AB 3000
(10%) 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
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 4 of ?
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 would provide 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.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law provides, among other things:
The JC shall annually recommend to the Governor and
the Legislature the amount proposed for projects paid
for with money in the SCFCF.
Money in the SCFCF shall only be used to acquire,
rehabilitate, construct, or finance court facilities;
or to rehabilitate one or more existing court
facilities in conjunction with the construction,
acquisition, or financing of one or more new court
facilities.
Twenty-five percent of all money collected for the
SCFCF from any county shall be designated for
implementation of trial court projects in that county
and based on the locally approved trial court
facilities master plan for that county. (Government
Code (GC) Section 70374.)
This bill would provide that money in the SCFCF shall
only be used for the planning, design, construction,
rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, leasing, or
acquisition of court facilities, including, but not
limited to, equipment, furniture, and furnishings for
those facilities, and related project costs.
This bill would provide that 25% of all money collected
for the SCFCF from any county shall be designated for
implementation of trial court projects in that county,
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 5 of ?
but this provision would not apply to money deposited in
the ICNA.
This bill would allow the State Public Works Board to,
among other things, issue lease-revenue bonds, notes, or
bond anticipation notes in an amount not to exceed $5
billion to finance the planning, design, construction,
rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, leasing, or
acquisition of court facilities, including, but not
limited to, equipment, furniture, and furnishings for
those facilities, and related project costs.
This bill would require 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.
1.Existing law established the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund (SCFCF), funded by revenues from civil
and criminal fees, fines, penalties, and surcharges, the
proceeds of which shall only be used to acquire,
rehabilitate, construct, or finance court facilities; or
to rehabilitate one or more existing court facilities in
conjunction with the construction, acquisition, or
financing of one or more new court facilities. (GC
Section 70371 et seq.)
This bill would establish the Immediate and Critical
Needs Account (ICNA) of the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund, the proceeds of which could only be
used for the following:
Planning, design, construction, rehabilitation,
renovation, replacement, or acquisition of court
facilities, including, but not limited to, equipment,
furniture, and furnishings for those facilities and
related project costs;
Repayment for moneys appropriated for lease of
court facilities pursuant to the issuance of
lease-revenue bonds; or
Payment for lease or rental of court facilities,
including those made for facilities in which one or
more private sector participants undertake some of the
risks associated with the financing, design,
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 6 of ?
construction, or operation of the facility.
1.Existing law provides that the uniform fee for filing the
first paper, including the first paper on behalf of any
defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party, in a
civil action or proceeding, a Probate Code proceeding, or
a Family Code proceeding is $320, and is to be
distributed as specified, including $35 to the SCFCF.
(GC Sections 70611, 70612, 70670, and 68085.3.)
This bill would provide that the uniform fee for filing
the first paper, including the first paper on behalf of
any defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party,
in a civil action or proceeding, a Probate Code
proceeding, or a Family Code proceeding would be $355,
and would be distributed as specified, including $35 to
the ICNA.
Existing law provides, among other things, that the
uniform fee for filing the first paper in a limited civil
case on behalf of the plaintiff or any other party is
$300, and in the case where the amount demanded,
excluding attorney's fees and costs, is $10,000 or less,
the uniform fee for filing the first paper is $180; and
is to be distributed as specified, including $25 or $20
to the SCFCF. (GC Sections 70613, 70614, and 68085.4.)
This bill would provide that the uniform fee for filing
the first paper in a limited civil case on behalf of the
plaintiff or any other party would be $330, and in the
case where the amount demanded, excluding attorney's fees
and costs, is $10,000 or less, the uniform fee for filing
the first paper would be $205; and would be distributed
as specified, including $30 or $25 to the ICNA.
Existing law provides that the filing fee for a notice of
appeal to the appellate division of the superior court in
a limited civil case is $300; the fee for filing a writ
petition within the original jurisdiction of the
appellate division of the superior court is $300; 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 $180; and is to be
distributed as specified, including $25 or $20 to the
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 7 of ?
SCFCF. (GC Sections 70621 and 68085.4.)
This bill would provide that the filing fee for a notice
of appeal to the appellate division of the superior court
in a limited civil case would be $330; the fee for filing
a writ petition within the original jurisdiction of the
appellate division of the superior court would be $330;
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 would be $205;
and would be distributed as specified, including $30 or
$25 to the ICNA.
Existing law provides that the uniform filing fee for
various estates or trusts actions under the Probate Code
is a specified amount depending upon the value of the
estate or trust; the uniform filing fee for other Probate
Code cases, including those relating to conservators and
guardians, is $320 or $180; and is to be distributed as
specified, including $35, $25 or $20 to the SCFCF. (GC
Sections 70650-70658, 68085.3 and 68085.4; Probate Code
Section 7660.)
This bill would provide that the uniform filing fee for
estates or trusts and other cases brought under the
Probate Code would be $355 or $205; and would be
distributed as specified, including $35, $30, or $25 to
the ICNA.
2.Existing law provides that there shall be levied a state
court construction penalty in the amount of $5 for every
$10 for every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and
collected by the courts for all criminal offenses. (GC
Section 70372.)
Existing law provides that, to ensure and maintain
adequate funding for court security, a fee of $20 shall
be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense,
including a traffic offense, except parking offenses.
(Penal Code Section 1465.8.)
This bill would increase the $20 to $60, and two-thirds
of the amounts collected would be deposited in the ICNA
(the other one-third would be deposited in the SCFCF).
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 8 of ?
Existing law provides that, for every parking offense
where a parking penalty, fine, or forfeiture is imposed,
an added state court construction penalty of $1.50 shall
be included in the total penalty, fine, or forfeiture.
(GC Section 70372.)
This bill would increase the $1.50 to $3.50, and a
specified calculated amount would be deposited in the
ICNA.
Existing law provides that a fee amounting to the total
bail plus $24 shall be collected by the court clerk when
a person is ordered to traffic violator school for a
moving violation. (Vehicle Code Section 42007.1.)
This bill would increase the $24 to $64, and 62.5% of the
amount collected would be deposited in the ICNA.
3.Existing law provides that, in an action for 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, the
standard filing fee shall be reduced by $15 to $165.
(Business and Professions (B&P) Code Section 6322.1.)
This bill would change the reduced filing fee to $190.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The sponsor, JC, 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:
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 9 of ?
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
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.
1.$5 billion bond revenues to finance critical court
facilities needs; assumptions being made
According to the sponsor, JC:
The Judicial Council has developed a comprehensive
plan for replacing and renovating the courthouses that
no longer can safely and effectively serve their
communities' needs. The Trial Court Capital-Outlay
Plan - which is organized into five priority groups -
identifies 152 projects. Of these, 68 projects are
Immediate and Critical Need Projects, representing the
branch's top priority for infrastructure improvement.
The Judicial Council has approved 12 of these projects
for submittal to the Executive and Legislative
branches for immediate funding, but no current funding
is available to fund these projects. There are an
additional 56 Immediate and Critical Need projects
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 10 of ?
currently without identified funding.
The JC writes that there are a number of drivers of the
critical needs in court facilities throughout the state,
including:
Lack of security, severe overcrowding, and poor
physical conditions;
Current need for additional judges;
The need to consolidate facilities;
The need to improve access to the courts;
The need to inventory all trial court space; and
The need to meet current unmet needs and space
requirements
(See Judicial Branch AB 1473 Five-Year Infrastructure
Plan Fiscal Year 2008-2009, June 1, 2007.)
This bill would authorize the State Public Works Board to
issue lease-revenue bonds of up to $5 billion to finance
the construction of approximately 40 of the most
immediate critical need capital court projects as
identified by the JC. The projects would be phased in
over four years. The JC intends to use the revenues
generated by the increased fees, fines, and penalties
proposed in SB 1407 and revenues generated from other
sources "to pay for site acquisition and design, and then
the proceeds of the bond for construction of 12
council-recommended projects, and approximately another
28 of the remaining 56 Immediate and Critical Need
projects, and establish an annual amount to support
renovations and major repairs - facilities modifications
- in courthouses that are not being replaced by immediate
capital replacements." This bill makes certain
assumptions about the amount of revenues that would be
generated from the increased fees, fines, and penalties
over the first three to four years after the bill goes
into effect, and makes other revenue-related assumptions
about the lease-revenue bonds once they are sold and
create revenue streams.
The first year projects that have been approved by the JC
and are in the Governor's FY 2008-2009 budget include
court facilities in Butte, Los Angeles, Tehama, and Yolo
Counties. The second year projects include facilities in
Imperial, Lake, Monterey, Riverside, Sacramento, Shasta,
Sonoma, and Sutter Counties. The third and fourth year
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 11 of ?
projects have not yet been selected, but would come from
the list of 56 Immediate and Critical Need projects.
This bill would also expand the purposes for which money
in the SCFCF and the ICNA may be used to include, in
addition to the planning, design, construction,
rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, leasing, or
acquisition of facilities, equipment, furniture,
furnishings, and related project costs. In general, such
things as equipment, furniture, and furnishing are not
included in capital outlay projects.
Should the bill be amended to clarify the limited capital
uses for which bond revenues may be used and that bond
proceeds may not be used to acquire equipment, furniture,
and furnishings?
1.SB 1407 would increase UCF fees between $25 and $35; with
the increase to be deposited in the ICNA
The UCF, as detailed in Changes to Existing Law, set
uniform statewide first paper and first response civil
filing fees, which went into effect January 1, 2006. The
UCF placed a moratorium, except as specified, on fee
increases until December 31, 2007. This bill would raise
those fees between $25 and $35, and would provide that
the increased amounts would be deposited in the newly
established ICNA. The increased fee revenues would be
used to fund court facilities needs identified and
prioritized by the JC, and to service the debt incurred
by the lease-revenue bonds proposed by the bill.
It could be argued that raising civil filing fees within
a year following the expiration of the moratorium creates
a monetary barrier to access to the courthouse and
justice. There is a delicate balance to be maintained
between the cost to individuals of accessing the courts
and the need to provide physically safe, secure, and
accessible court facilities. The JC argues that the fee
increases in this bill would allow the courts to maintain
that delicate balance in the face of urgent physical,
safety- and security-related court facilities needs. The
JC also argues that, in appropriate cases, an individual
may be granted a waiver from required fees.
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 12 of ?
2.History of civil filing fees increases
The following is a history of first paper civil fee
increases from 1998 to 2006:
AB 233 (Escutia, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997)
established: 1) a $3 increase to the base fee of $182
for plaintiffs in first paper filings in family law
and probate actions and in civil actions where the
amount at issue is (a) up to $10,000, and (b) over
$25,000; and 2) a $10 increase to the base fee of $80
for plaintiffs in first paper filings in civil actions
where the amount at issue is over $10,000 and up to
$25,000.
AB 3000 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 1124,
Statutes of 2002) established through July 1, 2007, a
10% surcharge on fees specified in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (c) of GC Section 68085. For first paper
filing fees, the 10% surcharge applied only to the
base fee.
SB 1732 (Escutia, Chapter 1082, Statutes of 2002)
established: 1) a $10 increase to the base fee of $185
for first paper filings in general unlimited civil,
family law, and probate actions from January 1, 2003,
through December 31, 2003, increasing to $15 from
January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2007; and 2) an
$18 increase to the base fee of $90 for first paper
filings in limited civil actions.
AB 1759 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 159, Statutes
of 2003) established: 1) a $20 (security fee) increase
to the base fee for first paper filings in general
civil, family law, and probate actions; 2) a $25
(court reporter fee) increase to the base fee for
first paper filings in general civil actions where the
amount at issue is over $10,000 and family law
actions; 3) various increases to the base fee for
first paper filings in probate actions where the value
of a trust or estate exceeds $250,000 (declared
unconstitutional on March 27, 2008, by the Court of
Appeal in In re Estate of Claeyssens (Burkey) (2008)
161 Cal.App.4th 465; see Comment 8); and 4) a $95 and
$105 increase for plaintiffs and respondents,
respectively, to the base fee for first paper filings
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 13 of ?
in limited civil actions where the amount at issue is
over $10,000 and up to $25,000.
AB 145 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 75, Statutes
of 2005) established statewide uniform first paper
civil fees of $165, $180, $300, and $320 in filings
related to family law, probate, and general civil
actions. For filings in general civil actions, the
fee is based on the amount at issue: 1) $165 in
filings where the amount at issue is up to $5,000; 2)
$180 in filings where the amount at issue is up to
$10,000; 3) $300 in filings where the amount at issue
is over $10,000 and up to $25,000; and 4) $320 in
filings where the amount at issue is over $25,000.
The uniform fees include various distributions to
various funds and programs, including the SCFCF,
Family Law Trust Fund, Health Statistics Special Fund,
Judges Retirement Fund, dispute resolution programs,
county law libraries, small claims advisory programs,
equal access programs, and children's waiting rooms.
In addition, the uniform fees subsumed the previously
separate continuance and amended/cross-complaints
fees.
1.SB 1407 would increase criminal, parking, and traffic
school fines and penalties
This bill would increase certain criminal, parking, and
traffic school fines and penalties, the additional
revenues from which would fund the ICNA and proposed
lease-revenue bonds. The issues raised by these
increased fines and penalties are addressed in detail in
the Senate Public Safety Committee's analysis of the
bill.
2.Prior bond legislation
Legislation to place a bond measure for trial court
facilities on the ballot was introduced in 2003 (SB 655,
Escutia) and in 2005 (SB 395, Escutia). SB 655 would
have authorized the state to issue general obligation
bonds for up to $4.146 billion, to be used for the
renovation, rehabilitation, modernization, and
construction of court facilities. The bill was held in
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 14 of ?
the Senate Appropriations Committee. While SB 395 did
not specify the amount that would be raised by the
issuance of bonds, the bill contained provisions that
would have addressed some special problems identified by
the JC since the passage of the TCFA.
In 2006, SB 1163 (Ackerman) was introduced to place a
bond measure before the voters in 2006 and 2010, for a
total of $1.8 billion for trial court facilities. The
bill was never heard in a policy committee. AB 1340
(Jones of 2007) would have enacted the Safe and Secure
Court Facility Bond Act of 2008, which would have
authorized the issuance of $2 billion in general
obligation bonds, the proceeds of which would have been
deposited in the 2008 Safe and Secure Court Facility Bond
Act Fund for specified purposes relating to the
acquisition, design, construction, or renovation of court
facilities. The bill was gutted and amended in January
2008.
3.Other prior related legislation
AB 1491 (Jones, Chapter 9, Statutes of 2008; GC Sections
70321, 70363, 70374, 70402, and 70322):
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.
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 their facilities between
April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009.
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; GC Sections
70301, 70324, and 70351.5):
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
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 15 of ?
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: 1) the seismic rating is
improved; 2) the building no longer contains court
facilities; 3) 35 years passes from the date of
transfer of the facilities; or 4) the county has
complied with the conditions for relief from
liability contained in an agreement, as specified.
In the event of seismic-related damage or
injury claims, counties shall indemnify, defend, and
hold the state harmless, except as specified.
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.
Authorizes counties and the Judicial Council 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.
Authorizes the California State Association of
Counties, the Judicial Council, and the Director 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 methods.
Remains in effect until January 1, 2010.
SB 145 (Corbett of 2007; GC Sections 70321, 70374, 70402,
and 70356.5):
Would have extended the deadline for the
transfer of responsibility for court facilities to
December 31, 2008.
Would have required 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.
Would have provided 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.
Would have provided that, notwithstanding any
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 16 of ?
other provision of law, a transfer agreement
executed on or after July 1, 2008, would be subject
to a financial penalty, in addition to the CFP,
calculated by the greater of two methods.
This bill is on the inactive file in the
Senate.
1.Recent appellate court decision; author's amendments
On March 27, 2008, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District, Division Six, issued its opinion in Burkey v.
State of California (Appeal No. B197307). In Burkey, the
graduated filing fee in probate cases (GC Section 70650)
was challenged as unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal
agreed, holding that the graduated fee, which was enacted
as part of AB 1759 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 159,
Statutes of 2003) to address the 2003-2004 budget crisis,
is an improper and unconstitutional tax.
The author is offering amendments to address the Burkey
decision. (See Comment 9.)
2.Author's amendments to be taken in Senate Appropriations
Committee
Amendment 1
Add Senator Corbett as a co-author
Amendment 2 (GC Section 70372)
On page 11, line 31, after "fraction" delete the rest of
the line and lines 32 - 34 and insert:
"as follows: (i) The numerator is the amount imposed as
an additional penalty on every ten dollars ($10) or part
of ten dollars ($10) upon every fine, penalty, or
forfeiture, if any, for deposit into the local courthouse
construction fund in that county established pursuant to
Sections 76000 and 76100. The numerator shall be
expressed in whole dollars and fractions of a dollar.
(ii) The denominator is five dollars ($5)."
(Note: With the above amendment, page 11, lines
26 - 34 would read as follows:
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 17 of ?
(f) (1) Within 45 days after the end of the
month that moneys are deposited in the county
treasury pursuant to subdivision (a), the county
treasurer shall transmit the moneys to the State
Controller, to be deposited as follows:
(A) The total to be deposited pursuant to
subdivision (a) shall be multiplied by a fraction
as follows:
(i) T t he numerator of which is the amount imposed
as an additional penalty on every ten dollars
($10) or part of ten dollars ($10) upon every
fine, penalty, or forefeiture, if any, collected
for deposit into the local courthouse
construction fund in that county established
pursuant to Sections 76000 and 76100. The
numerator shall be expressed in whole dollars and
fractions of a dollar.)
(ii) , and t The denominator of which is five
dollars ($5).)
Amendment 3 (GC Section 70374)
On page 12, strike lines 39-40 and on page 13, strike
lines 1-9 and insert:
(d) (1) Except as provided in Section 70374.2 and
subparagraph (d)(2) of this section, 25 percent of all
money collected for the State Court Facilities
Construction Fund from any county shall be designated for
implementation of trial court projects in that county.
The Judicial Council shall determine the local projects
after consulting with the trial court in that county and
based on the locally approved trial court facilities
master plan for that county.
(2) Subdivision (d)(1) shall not apply to money that has
been deposited in the Immediate and Critical Needs
Accounts of the State Court Facilities Construction Fund,
established in Section 70371.5.
(Note: the effect of the above amendment is that
current law remains unchanged with the exception of
the reference in (d)(1) to subparagraph (d)(2) and
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 18 of ?
by the addition of subparagraph (d)(2).)
Amendment 4 (GC Section 70650)
On page 19, line 37, after "Code," insert "three hundred
fifty-five dollars ($355)." Delete the rest of line 37,
and delete lines 38-40.
On page 20, strike line 1 - 40, and on page 21, strike
lines 1 - 16
On page 21, line 17, strike "(c)" and insert "(b)"
On page 21, line 27, strike "(d)" and insert "(c)"
On page 21, line 28, strike "(d)" and insert "(c)"
On page 21, line 30, strike "(d)" and insert "(c)"
On page 21, line 35, strike "(c)" and insert "(b)"
On page 21, line 38, strike "(e)" and insert "(d)"
On page 22, line 2, strike "(d)" and insert "(c)"
On page 22, line 4, strike "(f)" and insert "(e)"
Amendment 5 (GC Section 70651)
On page 22, line 11, strike "account"
On page 22, line 11, line 13, delete "(d)" and insert
"(c)"
On page 22, line 16, line 13, delete "(d)" and insert
"(c)"
On page 22, line 17, line 13, delete "(d)" and insert
"(c)"
Amendment 6 (GC Section 70652)
On page 22, line 25, after "Code," insert "or a first
account of a trustee of a testamentary trust that is
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 19 of ?
subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the court
pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 17300) of
Part 5 of Division 9 of the Probate Code,"
On page 22, line 29, after "petition" insert "or first
account of a trustee of a testamentary trust"
On page 22, line 40, delete, "of first accounts or
opposition to" and delete page 22, lines 1-4.
Amendment 7 (add GC Section 70657.5)
On page 25, before line 39 insert:
"SEC. 21.5 Section 70657.5 of the Government Code is
amended to read:"
70657.5. (a) The uniform fee for filing the following
petitions or applications, and objections or other
opposition, is forty dollars ($40):
(1) Petitions or applications, or opposition,
concerning the internal affairs of a trust that are not
subject to the filing fees provided in Section 70650,
70651, or 70652.
(2) Petitions or applications, or objections, filed
subsequent to issuance of temporary letters of
conservatorship or guardianship or letters of
conservatorship or guardianship that are not subject to
the filing fee provided in subdivision (a) of Section
70658.
(3) Petitions or applications, or objections, filed
subsequent to issuance of special letters of
administration or letters testamentary or of
administration in decedent's estate proceedings that are
not subject to the filing fee provided in subdivision (a)
of Section 70658.
(4) The first or subsequent petition for special
letters of administration without the powers of a general
personal representative.
(5) The first or subsequent petition for temporary
letters of conservatorship or guardianship.
(b) No fee is payable under this section for any of
the following:
(1) A petition or opposition filed subsequent to
issuance of letters of temporary guardianship or letters
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 20 of ?
of guardianship in a guardianship described in Section
70654.
(2) A petition filed by a personal representative of a
decedent's estate commenced on or after August 18, 2003,
that is described or referred to in subdivision (d) of
Section 70658.
(3) A disclaimer of an interest in a decedent's
estate.
Amendment 8 (GC Section 70685)
On page 26, line 1, strike "and (d)"
On page 27, strike lines 24 - 38, and page 28, lines 1 -
17
Amendment 9 (Penal Code Section 1465.8)
On page 29, line 17, after "security" insert "and court
facilities"
Support: The Superior Courts of the following counties:
Alameda, El Dorado, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Lake,
Los Angeles, Mendocino, Orange, Sacramento, San
Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara,
Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus, Tehama,
Ventura and Yolo; Director, Department of Social
Services, Imperial County; Solano County Board of
Supervisors; Consumer Attorneys of CA; San Fernando
Valley Bar Assoc.
Opposition: CA Public Defenders Assoc.; CA Attorneys for
Criminal Justice; CA Teamsters (to the proposed
increased criminal fines and penalties; see Public
Safety Committee analysis for discussion.)
HISTORY
Source: Judicial Council of California
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: See Background and Comments 6 and 7
SB 1407 (Perata)
Page 21 of ?
Prior Vote: Senate Public Safety Committee (Ayes 4, Noes
1)
**************