Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill: Criminal Justice

Capital Outlay (0250)

Withhold Recommendation on Funding for New Courthouses

We withhold recommendation on four new courthouse projects proposed to be funded with a $2 billion general obligation bond because two of the facilities they would replace have not been transferred to the state and prior legislation to allow such transfers has expired. In addition, the new projects need to be examined in the context of the state’s overall infrastructure plan which is not scheduled for release until March 2008. We further recommend going forward on 11 previously approved courthouses that would be funded from the State Court Facilities Construction Fund.

Proposal. The budget proposes a $2 billion general obligation bond to acquire, design, construct, or renovate the state’s court facilities. If approved by the Legislature, this general obligation bond would be submitted to statewide voters in November 2008. The $2 billion amount would not fund all facility needs identified by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), but would provide immediate funding to handle what AOC ranks as the most critical infrastructure issues in the state’s large inventory of court facilities. In its five–year infrastructure plan, AOC estimated that $9.7 billion would eventually be needed to bring all the courts up to secure and safe standards and accommodate growth.

Bond Issue Would Support Current and Upcoming Projects. In addition to the continuation of 11 courthouse projects approved by the Legislature in prior years and funded by the State Court Facilities Construction Fund (SCFCF), the Governor’s budget includes funding for four new courthouse projects that are proposed to be supported with the new general obligation bonds. Specifically, the budget plan proposes to allocate $62 million in bond proceeds for land acquisition to start these projects, which are estimated ultimately to cost about $434 million. These projects are summarized in Figure 1. They would be completed by 2013 if the bonds were approved by the voters later this year.

The administration also proposes to use the bond issue to complete eight other courthouse projects that have been previously approved. These projects, have been partially funded by SCFCF, a fund supported by court fees and fines. They would cost $856 million in bond funds to complete. All eight of these court facilities would be completed by 2012. In addition, the budget plan proposes to continue three other ongoing courthouse projects using only monies from SCFCF.

Some Courthouses Not Yet Transferred to State. The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (Chapter 1082, Statutes of 2002 [SB 1732, Escutia]), provided legal authority for the transfer of local court facilities to the state. This authority expired in June 2007, and legislative proposals to extend the deadline for courthouse transfers were not approved. The AOC has indicated that it will again seek such legislation this year to extend the authority for such transfers.

This situation has potential implications for two of the four proposed new courthouse projects, in southeast Los Angeles and Tehama County, that have not transferred to the state (the Yolo and Butte County courthouse facilities have transferred). The 2007–08 Budget Act specified that counties must transfer their courthouses to the state prior to the release of funds for the projects funded in the budget act. The Legislature has taken the position that it would be inappropriate to move forward with new projects in jurisdictions where such transfers have not been completed. Similar language in the Governor’s proposed 2008–09 budget bill places a similar requirement on various other courthouse projects. However, the budget item containing the four new projects does not contain similar language. We are advised by AOC that both the southeast Los Angeles and Tehama courthouses would be in a position to transfer to the state shortly after any legislation to extend the transfer deadline is enacted.

Analyst’s Recommendations. We withhold recommendation on the four new courthouse projects because two of the facilities they would replace have not been transferred to the state and prior legislation to allow such transfers has expired. In addition, the new projects need to be examined in the context of the state’s overall infrastructure plan which is not scheduled for release until March 2008.

It is not yet clear whether the Legislature will reauthorize now–expired legislation relating to the transfer of courthouses from counties to the state. If these four projects are ultimately approved, we recommend adoption of language requiring that the courthouses they replace be transferred to the state before funding for the new courthouse projects can be released. This would be consistent with legislative policy and the conditions imposed in the budget bill for other projects.

We also recommend going forward on the 11 other courthouses that have been previously approved by the Legislature.

Proposal to Relocate Headquarters Is Premature

We find that a request for $432,000 ($130,000 General Fund) in 2008–09 to support the initial planning costs to relocate the Department of Industrial Relations’ headquarters in 2009–10 is premature. The primary purpose of the move is to allow for the expansion of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Hiram Johnson State Building in San Francisco. However, neither AOC nor DOJ has presented a plan or justified the need or the costs for the expansion.

We discuss issues surrounding a proposal for the AOC and DOJ to expand into the Department of Industrial Relations’ space in the “Department of Industrial Relations” section of the “General Government” chapter.