SB 428 amends Government Code section 8544.4 to allow the permanent office of the California State Auditor to be located in Sacramento or anywhere within a two-mile radius of the State Capitol Building, rather than strictly “in Sacramento.” That textual change creates an explicit legal basis for siting the permanent office outside the City of Sacramento — most noticeably in the City of West Sacramento — while keeping the statute’s existing office standards.
The bill also authorizes the expenditure of moneys in the State Audit Fund for additional purposes tied to the State Auditor’s office, which the Legislature’s digest recognizes as creating an appropriation. The practical effect: the Auditor gains both location flexibility and a newly explicit funding pathway to cover related facility and operational expenses, with corresponding policy and budgetary implications for facility management, procurement, and oversight.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends Government Code §8544.4 so the State Auditor’s permanent office may be in Sacramento or within a two-mile radius of the State Capitol Building. Separately, the bill authorizes additional uses of the State Audit Fund, creating an appropriation for related expenses.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the California State Auditor’s office (facilities, leases, operations), state facilities/procurement managers, and the State Treasury administration of the State Audit Fund. Local governments and commercial landlords in the Sacramento–West Sacramento area also gain a new tenant market.
Why It Matters
The change removes a statutory restriction that effectively tied the office to the City of Sacramento and creates a funding mechanism to pay for office-related costs without a separate annual appropriation. That combination alters where the Auditor can locate, how moves are funded, and who will manage the practical and fiscal consequences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 428 makes two tightly focused changes to the law governing the State Auditor. First, it edits the statute that currently says the Auditor’s permanent office “shall be in Sacramento” so that the permanent office may be either in Sacramento or within a two-mile radius of the State Capitol Building.
The bill retains the statutory phrase requiring “suitable and sufficient offices” and preserves the Auditor’s existing discretion to maintain additional offices elsewhere in the state when work requires.
Second, the bill opens the State Audit Fund to pay for additional purposes connected to the Auditor’s office. The legislative digest describes this as creating an appropriation: by authorizing new allowable uses for a continuously appropriated fund, the bill establishes a funding path for office and operational expenses that would not need a separate annual appropriation line.Operationally, the two changes work together.
With the statute permitting a location within two miles of the Capitol and the fund available to cover related costs, the Auditor can pursue a move, new lease, or different facility configuration without seeking a new funding authorization. That raises a cluster of implementation tasks: identifying suitable space that meets security and public-access expectations, coordinating with the Department of General Services on leasing and procurement rules, and recording any fund expenditures in Treasury and budget reports.For compliance officers and budget staff, the immediate takeaway is practical: a new legal basis exists for an out-of-City permanent office and for funding moves or facility needs from the State Audit Fund.
The bill does not create new oversight reporting requirements or detail what “additional purposes” entail, so many specifics about allowable uses, accountability, and limits will be resolved through administrative practice and Treasury/budget guidance after the change is in effect.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill specifically amends Government Code section 8544.4 — the single statutory home for rules about the State Auditor’s permanent office.
It preserves the statute’s existing phrase that the Auditor shall be provided with “suitable and sufficient offices,” keeping a baseline standard for workspace even after the location rule changes.
The law retains the Auditor’s existing authority to maintain additional offices elsewhere in the state when the conduct of work requires, so the change does not restrict regional field presence.
By expanding permissible uses of the State Audit Fund, the bill creates a continuous appropriation mechanism available to the Auditor for facility and related expenses without requiring a separate annual appropriation.
The two-mile radius is measured from the State Capitol Building — a geographic standard that will govern site selection and is administrable but may produce boundary debates for sites near the river (notably across to West Sacramento).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Allows permanent office within two miles of the State Capitol
This provision replaces the existing strict location requirement (“in Sacramento”) with a dual option: Sacramento or within a two-mile radius of the State Capitol Building. Practically, that gives the State Auditor statutory authority to locate the permanent office on either bank of the river and in neighboring jurisdictions that fall inside the radius. For facilities and real-estate planning, the provision supplies a clear geographic test (two miles from the Capitol) but does not change the statutory expectation that offices be “suitable and sufficient,” leaving standards for space, security, and public access intact.
Preserves discretion to maintain other statewide offices
The amendment leaves untouched the sentence that allows the Auditor to maintain offices elsewhere in the state when the work requires. That means the bill affects only the statutory location of the permanent office — it does not limit regional audit field offices or change how the Auditor staffs or locates audit teams statewide. Agencies that coordinate with the Auditor (for example, for access or joint facilities) should expect continuity in field operations even if the permanent office shifts.
Authorizes additional uses of the State Audit Fund (creates appropriation)
The bill’s digest and accompanying language authorize expenditures from the State Audit Fund for additional purposes tied to the Auditor’s office, which the Legislature treats as an appropriation. Functionally, that permits the Auditor to use those continuously appropriated monies for facility-related expenses that previously might have required a separate budget appropriation. The statute does not list eligible expense categories or caps, so Treasury, the Department of Finance, and internal audit controls will play an outsized role in deciding permissible uses and reporting.
Practical steps — leasing, procurement, and reporting
Because the bill does not amend procurement, budgeting, or reporting statutes, any relocation or spend will still need to comply with state contracting rules and Treasury reporting requirements. The Department of General Services typically handles state office leasing; the Auditor will coordinate with DGS and Treasury on any new lease or expenditure. Expect internal policy work to define what counts as an allowable use of the State Audit Fund and to set disclosure or approval processes for significant facility expenditures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California State Auditor’s office — Gains legal flexibility to choose workspace that may reduce rent, improve security, or expand capacity, and a funding pathway to cover related costs.
- City of West Sacramento and local landlords — Receive a clear new market opportunity for state office tenants inside the two-mile radius, potentially attracting a major long-term lease.
- State facilities and procurement teams — Obtain clearer statutory basis to support site selection and coordinate leasing across jurisdictional boundaries without seeking statutory exemptions.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Audit Fund (and indirectly, audit program resources) — The fund will be available for expanded uses, reducing its balance available for other audit-related expenditures unless replenished.
- Department of General Services and procurement staff — Face added workload and oversight responsibilities to negotiate leases, ensure compliance with procurement rules, and operationalize the Auditor’s move.
- State budget and treasury oversight — Will need to monitor the new appropriation pathway and clarify allowable expenditures, increasing reporting and analytic demands on Finance and Treasury staff.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade-off is between operational flexibility and fiscal/oversight accountability: the bill gives the Auditor more freedom to choose and fund an office location quickly, but it also routes costs into a fund with fewer annual appropriations checks, creating a tension between administrative efficiency and the Legislature’s interest in transparent budgetary control.
Two practical uncertainties stand out. First, the bill authorizes “additional purposes” for the State Audit Fund but does not define them or set spending limits; administrators must decide whether that includes capital improvements, tenant improvements, moving costs, ongoing lease payments, or one-time expenses.
The absence of statutory guardrails leaves room for interpretation and could reduce transparency about how audit-dedicated funds are spent unless the Department of Finance or Treasury issues guidance.
Second, the two-mile radius is legally precise but operationally blunt. It offers an administrable rule for site selection, yet it creates edge cases — properties very close to the Capitol but across municipal lines, or sites that trigger different security or access regimes.
That raises questions about continuity of public access to the Auditor’s public records and hearings, security clearance logistics, and how proximity to the Legislature might affect perceived independence. Finally, shifting some costs into a continuously appropriated fund changes budget dynamics: it can speed implementation but also masks costs that would otherwise appear in the annual budget process, reducing opportunity for legislative scrutiny.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.