Momentum grows for change in funding court construction

Momentum appears to be growing behind a proposed change in how the state finances courthouse construction and maintenance.

Testimony at an informational hearing by an Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Monday offered a thorough analysis of the state budget allocations for the courts and the Department of Justice. Much of the early part of the hearing focused on a proposal from the Legislative Analyst’s Office to move responsibility for court construction back into the General Fund.

This followed a proposal from Gov. Gavin Newsom to merge the State Court Facilities Construction Fund and Immediate and Critical Needs Account. But according to Anita Lee, principal fiscal and policy analyst with the Legislative Analyst’s Office, this would merely delay the inevitable.

“At minimum, we recommend the Legislature approve the governor’s proposed consolidation because it does delay the need to address the insolvency within the budget year,” Lee said. “There really is no rational reason for maintaining two separate accounts when both of them are going to become insolvent anyway.”

She added, “There really isn’t a plan to address the insolvency permanently. Because of this, we recommend the Legislature go further by shifting full responsibility for trial court construction over to the General Fund. This is because, absent any changes, significant General Fund resources are going to be needed to support existing obligations.”

Lee estimated these obligations could hit $173 million in the 2023-24 budget year. She added that the need for General Fund support would continue for at least 16 years under current budget and court construction plans. Her agency’s proposal would move the money in the two accounts, along with future fine and fee revenue, into the General Fund as well.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office first recommended this change in 2018, then offered it again in an analysis published last month. It would reverse part of an overhaul of court construction and maintenance the Legislature approved in 2002 when it moved responsibility for court maintenance from counties to the state. Subsequent legislation created the two funds.

A task force created under the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 recommended putting courts under state control. County control had led to a disparity between courts in different areas, the task force found, with many courts failing to maintain necessary standards.

“The task force report identified common problems of inadequate security, safety, and access for the disabled in the courts, and further found that a significant number of state court buildings need repair, renovation, or maintenance,” noted an analysis of SB 1732, also known as the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002.

But that system helped create additional problems that have dogged the judicial branch ever since. The funds were supported by fine and fee revenue. For years, critics have argued that court fees and traffic fines place an undue burden on low-income people.

“We think it’s important to consider other possible solutions, including options that do not require such a significant and immediate General Fund commitment, and we’re working with the Judicial Council to do so,” Jesse Romine with the California Department of Finance told lawmakers. “The imminent insolvency of these funds is part of a larger problem relating to declining fine and fee revenue.”

When the last financial crisis hit in 2007, fine and fee revenue dried up even further. Meanwhile, the Legislature raided the funds to help balance its own books. The result was court construction in the state slowed down significantly.

The discussion then moved on to proposals to extend pilot projects designed to help lower-income litigants, including self-help programs and excusing fines owed by people who say they cannot afford to pay.

Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, who chairs the Assembly Judiciary Committee and sits on the budget subcommittee, said the pandemic has exposed problems in the court system. He has said repeatedly in recent months that he is examining possible extensive changes to equalize access to justice for different income groups and geographic areas.

“What the pandemic has really shown is that we don’t have the same level of access to justice in all 58 courts as I think we should strive for,” Stone said. “We’ve built revenues for the judicial branch in the wrong way.”