Instead of relying on fickle foreclosure filing fees, most funding for the courts would shift to general revenue sources in Gov. Rick Scott’s proposed budget that asks lawmakers to appropriate the same amount of dollars to the third branch of government as they did a year ago.
The governor’s proposed budget, released Dec. 7, also calls for maintaining the same level of funding for the state attorneys, public defenders, capital collateral representatives, regional conflict counsel and the statewide guardian ad litem program.
While the proposal calls for a 4 percent reduction in the clerks of the court budgets, it also would exempt the clerks from an 8 percent general revenue service charge they’re now required to pay the state for services they don’t use.
“Gov. Scott’s proposed budget for the state courts includes a thoughtful means of addressing revenue problems that have made the funding for Florida’s state courts chaotic for well over a year now,” Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady said.
“Most significantly, it largely eliminates our current overdependence on volatile mortgage foreclosure filing fees,” he said.
Of equal importance, Canady said, the governor’s budget recognizes the reductions the courts have previously sustained and proposes no additional cuts in funding or personnel.
“We are very grateful to Gov. Scott for his efforts in support of funding for Florida’s courts,” Canady said.
In 2009, the Legislature shifted the lion’s share of court funding from general revenue sources to the State Court Revenue Trust Fund, which receives the bulk of its money from foreclosure filing fees.
But when major foreclosure players imposed a moratorium on filings due to the faulty paperwork scandal, foreclosure filings dramatically dropped off, triggering a cash-flow budget crisis for the courts and the clerks.
Both have needed loans from the executive branch to get through their 2010-11 budgets and again in the current budget year. The courts needed loans of almost $100 million this year to function through next March.
“I think we all agree we have to stabilize the courts’ funding,” Bonnie Rogers, coordinator of public safety for the governor, told the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Dec. 8.
She said the governor’s plan “very simply” takes the foreclosure filing fees, which generate about 70 percent of the State Court Revenue Trust Fund, and redirects that money to the general revenue fund.
The general revenue fund, she said, is large enough to absorb any instability in foreclosure filings, so the money allocated for the courts will be there when they need it.
“The governor had asked the chief justice and the courts to review their expenditures, tighten where they could, and we feel very confident that they have done that, and the dollars the governor proposes to shift back to general revenue are necessary and appropriate for the courts,” Rogers said.
Committee Chair Mike Fasano (R-New Port Richey) said the governor’s plan is very similar to the recommendations put forth by the court’s Revenue Stabilization Workgroup.
In all, the governor’s plan would provide $434 million for the state court system and 4,322.5 positions, almost identical to this year’s budget.
Fasano said the plan is also structured in a way that the court’s current loans would be paid off and the branch would start the new fiscal year “not owing any money.”
Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton) said every entity that receives money from the Legislature should be accountable for how they spend those dollars, including the courts.
“Do we do anything to look at the efficiency of the courts and what they can do to help themselves?” asked Bennett.
“When we are giving out these huge piles of money, or loans, do we do anything to find out how they are spending it and hold them accountable for that and make them look at their costs of doing business?”
Rogers said the governor’s office does review the court’s expenditures and meets frequently with the Office of the State Courts Administrator, “especially since we are involved in approving loans.”
“They actually have very little discretion in their budget because most of that is tied to salaries or fixed costs,” Rogers said.
“They have certainly, I think, done everything they can, within their means, to spend appropriately.”