Bill
AB 443
Raises max municipal court fee from $38 to $48; $5 goes to state fund, rest to municipality; allows up to $10 more per case, boosting local revenue with no new state funding.
Note — the packet you provided contains multiple different bills all labeled “AB 443” (a California energy bill about curtailed renewables and hydrogen, a Wisconsin bill increasing municipal court fees, and other disparate drafts). Your Bill Information at the top references increasing the maximum municipal court fee, so the summary below focuses on that municipal-court-fee measure. If you instead want a full summary of the California energy AB 443 (curtailed solar/wind → hydrogen assessment), tell me and I will prepare it.
Purpose
- Increase the maximum fee that may be collected in each separate municipal court action, thereby raising per-case fee revenue available to municipalities.
Key provisions
- Raises the maximum municipal court fee from $38 to $48 (an increase of $10).
- Continues existing distribution: $5 of each fee is remitted to the State general fund (Department of Administration), and the remainder is retained by the municipality.
- Assembly Amendment 1 (offered Oct 21, 2025) clarifies that municipal courts (rather than municipal judges) are authorized to collect the fee.
- No changes appear to state-mandated program funding; the amendment simply adjusts fee authority and collection mechanics.
Who is affected
- Municipal courts and municipalities: would be authorized to collect up to $48 per separate municipal court action and would retain the balance above the $5 remitted to the state.
- Parties involved in municipal court actions (defendants, litigants): could face up to $10 greater court-related fees per action.
- State general fund: receives the same $5 per fee as under current law; the state share is unchanged.
Fiscal and policy impacts
- Per-case municipal revenue could increase by up to $10 (from $33 retained under current law to up to $43 retained per fee, after the $5 state share), depending on the fee amount set and the number of cases — municipalities set actual collection up to the authorized maximum.
- The overall fiscal impact depends on the volume of municipal court actions; the bill summary indicates a likely fiscal effect on local governments but does not provide a dollar estimate.
- No appropriation is attached.
Procedural status and timeline (from documents provided)
- Assembly Amendment 1 offered Oct 21, 2025; recommended for adoption by Assembly Committee on Local Government (Ayes 9, Noes 0).
- Committee recommended passage as amended (Ayes 9, Noes 0); referred to Committee on Rules (11/07/2025).
- Executive action and hearings occurred in Oct 2025; public hearing held Oct 8, 2025.
Notes and considerations
- The bill authorizes (but does not require) municipalities to raise fees up to the new maximum; local governing bodies or municipal court administration would decide whether to implement the higher fee.
- The unchanged $5 state share means the increase primarily benefits municipal budgets.
- Potential equity or access-to-justice concerns may arise if higher per-case fees deter court participation; those considerations are typically discussed in committee analyses or public comment.
If you want: I can (a) produce a concise one‑page fiscal estimate of likely revenue ranges under plausible case volumes, (b) summarize the California AB 443 (curtailed renewables → hydrogen assessment), or (c) draft a neutral one‑page explainer you can use for outreach. Which would you like next?
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
