BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1773
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2006
Counsel: Kathleen Ragan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Leno, Chair
SB 1773 (Alarcon) - As Introduced: February 24, 2006
SUMMARY : Provides that until January 1, 2009, a county board
of supervisors may elect to levy an additional penalty in the
amount of $2 for every $10, upon fines, penalties and
forfeitures collected for criminal offenses, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that 15% of the funds collected pursuant to these
provisions be expended for pediatric trauma centers, and would
require use of these funds, not to exceed 10% for
administrative costs.
2)Provides that of the money deposited into the fund pursuant to
the Government Code, 15% shall be utilized to provide funding
for pediatric trauma centers throughout the county, both
publicly and privately owned.
3)States that expenditures shall be limited to reimbursements to
doctors and surgeons, and to hospitals for patients who do not
make payment for services, or to hospitals expanding the
services provided at pediatric trauma centers, including the
purchase of equipment.
4)States that counties that do not maintain a pediatric trauma
unit shall utilize the money to improve access to pediatric
trauma and emergency services in the county, with preference
given to hospitals that specialize in services to children,
and physicians and surgeons who provide care for children.
5)Provides that funds spent for this purpose of the section
shall be known as "Richie's Fund."
6)States that this subdivision shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 2009 and shall have no force or effect after that
date unless a later enacted statute chaptered before January
1, 2009 deletes or extends that date.
SB 1773
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for an additional "state penalty" of $10 for every
$10 or fraction thereof levied upon every fine, penalty or
forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal
offenses including all offenses, except parking offenses,
involving the Vehicle Code. The money collected from the
penalty is distributed in specified percentages among: the
Fish and Game Preservation Fund, the Restitution Fund, the
Peace Officers Training Fund, the Driver Training Penalty
Assessment Fund, the Corrections Training Fund, the Local
Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund, the
Victim-Witness Assistance Fund, and the Traumatic Brain Injury
Fund. (Penal Code Section 1464.)
2)Provides that in each county there shall be an additional
penalty of $7 for every $10 thereof upon every fine, penalty,
or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal
offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the
Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the
Vehicle Code except parking offenses. The money collected
shall be placed in any of the following funds if established
by a county board of supervisors: Courthouse Construction
Fund, Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund, Automated
Fingerprint Identification Fund, Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) Fund, or DNA Identification Fund. (Government Code
Section 76000.)
3)Imposes a state surcharge of 20% on every base fine collected
by the court. All money collected shall be deposited in the
General Fund. (Penal Code Section 1465.7.)
4)Establishes a state court construction penalty assessment in
an amount up to $5 for every $10 or fraction thereof, upon
every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by
the courts for criminal offenses. The variation in the amount
is dependant on the amount collected by the county for deposit
into the local Courthouse Construction Fund established
pursuant to Government Code Section 76100. As a result, the
penalty assessment ranges from $0.00 for every $10 in two
counties to the full $5 for every $10 in nine counties. This
provision took effect on January 1, 2003. (Government Code
Section 70372.)
SB 1773
Page 3
5)Provides for a flat fee of $20 on every conviction for a
criminal offense to ensure adequate funding for court
security. (Penal Code Section 1465.8.)
6)Levies a $1 penalty assessment on every $10 in fines and
forfeitures resulting from criminal and traffic offenses and
dedicates these revenues to state and local governments for
Proposition 69, DNA Databank, implementation purposes.
(Government Code Section 76104.6.)
7)Authorizes a county to establish a Maddy EMS Fund to be used
to reimburse physicians and hospitals for patients who do not
make payment for emergency medical services and for other
emergency medical services purposes as determined by each
county. Requires each county establishing the fund to report
to the Legislature annually on the implementation and status
of the fund. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 1797.98a
et seq.; Government Code Section 76104.]
8)Provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
Santa Barbara County an additional penalty of $5 for every
$10, or fraction thereof, shall be imposed on every fine,
penalty, or forfeiture collected for criminal offenses.
States that this shall include all offenses involving a
violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted
pursuant to the Vehicle Code, except parking offenses.
[Government Code Section 76104.1(a.]
9)Provides that for every parking offense in Santa Barbara
County, where a penalty, fine or forfeiture is imposed, an
additional penalty of $2.50 shall be included. [Government
Code Section 76104.1(b.]
10)Provides that in Santa Barbara County, upon the establishment
of a Maddy EMS Fund, the amount that would have been collected
pursuant to the Government Code for penalty assessments shall
be deposited into that Santa Barbara County EMS Fund.
11)Government Code Section 76104.6 provides for an additional
penalty of $1 for every $10 or fraction thereof imposed and
collected by the courts for criminal offenses for purpose of
implementing the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence
Protection Act (10%).
12) Penal Code Section 1465.8(a)(1) states that a fee of $20
SB 1773
Page 4
shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense.
13)Provides for specific uses of the county share of the penalty
assessments, as follows:
a) States that each county may establish an emergency
medical services fund, upon adoption of a resolution by the
board of supervisors. [HSC Section 1797.98(b)(1).]
b) Provides that the source of the moneys in the EMS Fund
shall be the penalty assessment made for this purpose, as
provided by Government Code Section 76000. [HSC Section
1797.98(c).]
c) States that for the purpose of assisting any county in
the acquisition, rehabilitation, and financing of
courtrooms or of a courtroom building, the board of
supervisors may establish in the county treasury a
Courthouse Construction Fund for the use of penalty
assessments. [Government Code Section 76100(a).]
d) Provides that each county board of supervisors may
establish in the county treasury a Criminal Justice
Facilities Construction Fund. [Government Code Section
76101(a).]
e) States that each county board of supervisors may
establish an Automated Fingerprint Identification Fund.
[Government Code Section 76102(a).]
f) Provides that each county board of supervisors may
establish in the county treasury a Forensic Laboratory
Fund. (Government Code Section 76103.)
g) States that the penalty assessments may be used by the
county to establish an emergency medical system.
(Government Code Section 76104.)
h) Provides that establishment of an automated
Photographic/DNA Identification Systems Fund may be funded
through penalty assessments. (Government Code Section
76104.5.)
14)Provides that in any county in which the board of supervisors
has not established an EMS Fund prior to July 1, 1991, the
SB 1773
Page 5
board may set aside up to 28% of the total revenue from the
penalty assessment fund for the purposes of supporting
emergency medical services. [Government Code Section
76104(c).]
15)Provides that a board of supervisors that has established a
Courthouse Construction Fund or a Criminal Justice Facilities
Construction Fund may provide for the transfer of excess
deposits to the county General Fund for the purposes of
meeting the public safety or emergency medical needs of the
county. Any such transfer is subject to the limitation that
any transfer shall not interfere with the purposes for which
the fund was created. (Government Code Section 76110.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Many hospitals
throughout California suffer from funding shortages. As a
result, hospitals are not prepared to adequately serve the
patients in their area and are often forced to close their
doors. Many of these hospitals offer trauma care services
that are essential to saving the lives of many patients who,
without them, would have no choice but to go elsewhere for
services. Currently, trauma care centers face a $635 million
dollar shortfall; this bill seeks to generate funding to help
alleviate this problem.
"[T]his bill would create a specific mechanism for the EMS fund
to allow counties to collect an additional $2 penalty
assessment on every $10 penalty for all criminal offenses, as
specified. This would be a $20 increase on the average $340
ticket payment.
"As a result of this bill, increased funding for Emergency and
Trauma Care is estimated to be $60 million per year. The bill
also establishes a Pediatric Care Allocation known as
'Richie's Fund' for equipment and facilities. These
additional funds would also be instrumental in maintaining the
financial stability of the emergency and trauma centers,
decreasing the diversion time and patient wait time, and
improving services overall. This bill has a sunset until
January 1, 2009."
SB 1773
Page 6
2)Background : According to a report issued in February 2006 by
the California Research Bureau (CBR), "Who Pays for Penalty
Assessment Programs in California?", "California now has
dedicated funding streams for over 269 separate court fines,
fees, forfeitures, surcharges and penalty assessments that may
be levied on offenders and violators. These fines, fees,
forfeitures (bail defaults or judgments and damages)
surcharges, and penalties appear in 16 different government
codes and are in addition to the many fees, fines, and special
penalties that local governments may impose on most offenses.
"As more surcharges and penalties have been imposed, the process
has become even more complicated. County courts must now
maintain two separate state accounts, and a state Judicial
Council account, and one local penalty account from which
monthly deposits are made into ten different state, and five
different county government sub-funds. This does not include
the special assessment penalty accounts imposed on drug and
alcohol and domestic violators.
"Court clerks and, in turn, county auditors are responsible for
maintaining detailed records of payment from individual
offenders and transmitting payments to the state. Our survey
found that county courts and collection agencies use a variety
of methods to collect unpaid debt from violators who fail to
comply with payment schedules. This has led to uneven
collection practices from county to county. As a result,
offenders are being treated differently in how their debt is
collected in different counties.
"The majority of counties that responded to [the survey] did not
provide data or were unable to answer questions about specific
offenses that generate penalty revenues because their case
management systems (CMS) are not capable of doing this type of
analysis. The Administrative Office of the Courts is
developing a reporting system that will improve the ability of
county courts to collect this type of data.
"[B]ased on these findings, we can reasonably conclude that 86%
of penalty assessment revenue is generated by traffic-related
offenses. This is substantially higher than any previous
estimate. Using this 86% figure, we estimate that roughly
$135.8 million of the $158 million projected by the Department
of Finance to be deposited into the State Penalty Fund account
SB 1773
Page 7
this fiscal year is generated by Vehicle Code violations.
"Penalty assessments that are added by statute to the fines
levied for criminal offenses produce surprisingly little
revenue, about 14% (assuming criminal offenses are the
remainder.) There are additional costs associated with the
imposition of these fines, as some criminals opt for jail time
in lieu of paying the fine, thereby increasing correctional
costs. Our survey found that in two counties able to provide
this data, 10% of the criminal offenders opted to go to jail
rather than pay penalty assessments. This resulted in added
costs associated with jail time.
"[D]ata submitted by Los Angeles County, which makes up
one-fourth of California's population, shows that the five
most frequently cited violations were traffic related and
totaled 675, 224 offenses for Fiscal Year 2004-05. Data
submitted by eight other counties also report traffic-related
offenses most frequently. The number and type of offense s
for Fiscal Year 2004-05 cited by three of the counties (Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and San Mateo) are as follows:
a) "Speeding in posted areas violations (211,950).
b) "Proof of car insurance violations (135,787).
c) "Seat belt violations (129,705).
d) "Driving through a red light violations (121,086).
e) "Speeding beyond 65 miles per hour violations (93,291)."
3)Other Traffic-Related Offenses that Generated Penalty
Assessments: The CRB reported the following:
a) "Driving under the influence (49,000).
b) "Reckless driving in a construction zone (11,276).
c) "Promise to appear violation (2,939 - one county
reporting).
d) "Driving without a license (1,909 - one county
reporting)."
SB 1773
Page 8
4)Criminal Offenses Were Not Within the Top 10 Categories that
Generate Penalty Assessments : According to the CRB report,
criminal violations (defined as violations of the Penal Code)
are not among the top `0 categories that generate penalty
assessments according to the responding nine counties. [D]ata
collected recently by the California Judicial Council,
Administrative Office of the Courts, [finds] similar results.
For example, as to the State Penalty Assessment Fund, $135.8
million was the projected revenue source for 2004 - 2005 for
Vehicle Code violations, but only $22.2 million was projected
for criminal offenses.
5)Other Problems Discovered by the CRB Report : The CRB report
found numerous problems with the imposition and collection of
penalty assessments. Some of these were failure to collect
penalty assessments, use of private collection agencies at
arguably unreasonably large fees, to collect the penalty
assessments; diversion of money designated for drivers
training to the state General Fund; and courts not knowing how
much money has been collected from offenders, or how much debt
is owed at any given time.
Given that the large majority of penalty assessments are paid by
persons convicted of relatively low-level traffic violations
and in view of the complexity of the accounting tasks faced by
county clerks given the number of different accounts that
specify and prioritize how funds are to be distributed, is it
a good idea to continue to impose new penalty assessments at
this time? Or would it be a better public policy to correct
the difficulties in the current system before adding
additional penalty assessments which will, according to the
CRB, be paid primarily by minor traffic violators?
6)Arguments in Support :
a) The American College of Emergency Physicians, State
Chapter of California (CAL/ACEP) states, "CAL/ACEP is proud
to sponsor this bill. This bill could potentially raise
$50 million to be used to reimburse physicians and surgeons
for care given to uninsured patients. The Maddy EMS Fund
is one of the primary mechanisms to reimburse physicians
and surgeons for treating uninsured patients. Counties
throughout California have only been able to reimburse
physicians a fraction of the dollar amount of the claims
submitted by physicians for treating uninsured patients.
SB 1773
Page 9
As the number of uninsured grows to over six million people
statewide, the losses sustained in emergency departments
continue to grow. In 2004, the California Medical
Association reported that over the past decade more than 65
emergency rooms have closed. This report also shows that
losses sustained by hospitals and physicians for the year
2001 - 2002 were over $635 million. As the losses continue
to grow the Maddy EMS Fund becomes even more vital.
Although passage of this bill will not fix the entire
emergency care crisis, it does help the already fragile
emergency care system from further deterioration.
"This bill will help keep specialists on the on-call panels
to treat all patients, not just the uninsured. This bill
will help keep board-certified emergency physicians from
moving to other states where there is an opportunity for
higher income."
b) The Emergency Nurses Association (CalENA) states,
"CalENA believes that by increasing fines, funds can be
generated to ensure trauma centers and emergency
departments can continue to provide these specialized
health care services to Californians. Additional funds
will be instrumental in maintaining the financial stability
of these centers which are critical to California's health
care system."
7)Arguments in Opposition :
a) The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) states, "POST clearly understands the importance of
maintaining effective emergency medical care statewide.
However, when programs or entities seek additional funding
through fines and penalty assessments, existing recipients
in the State Penalty Fund are negatively affected.
"This bill will not provide sufficient revenues to address
the serious problems related to emergency medical services.
Another approach needs to be pursued to provide a
permanent and more stable fix to this problem.
"When the Governor vetoed SB 57 (Alarcon), he correctly
stated in his veto message that:
i) 'Fines and penalty assessments have increased
SB 1773
Page 10
dramatically in recent years.
ii) 'The revenue collected from fines and penalties have
not reflected a corresponding increase.
iii) 'New fines or penalties reduce both the imposition
and collection of existing fines and penalty assessments,
which reduces the overall revenue distributed to existing
entities funded in this manner.
iv) 'While programs seeking new or added funding in this
manner might be deserving or worthwhile, it is not
possible to continue increasing recipients without
reducing funding to current deserving recipients.
v) 'By increasing funding in this way there will be a
reduction in funding for the remaining recipients.' "
b) The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council states,
"This bill would substantially increase fines on vehicle
code violations, affecting commercial drivers and their
employers alike for the purpose of supplementing funding
for emergency room doctors.
"[U]nfortunately, this bill represents a tiny band-aid that
will have little impact on the overall problem but have a
significant negative impact on the group the bill targets
for what can only be characterized as a tax on our members
and every other working driver in this state.
"The Teamsters have become increasingly concerned over the
high level of fines for infractions. They have been on a
steady rise in recent years and our view is that we have
reached the saturation point. Just a few years ago, the
Legislature increased fines across the board 20%. This,
coupled with high insurance rates and the fact that our
members are no longer permitted to attend traffic school
under a recently-enacted measure, make further increases in
fines and penalties difficult to swallow."
8)Related Legislation : AB 2265 (Nava) would increase penalty
assessments to support the trauma center in Santa Barbara
county only. AB 2265 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate
Public Safety Committee on June 27, 2006.
SB 1773
Page 11
9)Prior Legislation : SB 635 (Dunn), Chapter 524, Statutes of
2004, enacted increased penalty assessments for Santa Barbara
County only to fund its trauma center.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American College of Emergency Physicians, State Chapter of
California
California Children's Hospital Association
Emergency Nurses Association
California Hospital Association
California Medical Association
California Nurses Association
County of Los Angeles
Emergency Medical Services Administrators Association of
California
University of California, Office of State Government Relations
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Opposition
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training
Analysis Prepared by : Kathleen Ragan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744