BILL ANALYSIS
AB 117
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 26, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Pedro Nava, Chair
AB 117 (Beall) - As Amended: March 22, 2007
SUBJECT : Traffic violations: fines and forfeitures
SUMMARY : This bill authorizes Santa Clara County to collect an
additional $2 penalty assessment for every $10 in base fines for
certain violations, for purposes of funding local traffic safety
programs. Sunsets the provisions of the bill January 1, 2013.
Specifically, this bill :
1) Authorizes the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Santa
Clara) to elect to levy an additional penalty of $2 for every
$10 or fraction thereof upon every fine, penalty, or
forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal
offenses involving the unsafe operation of a motor vehicle
upon the highway in violation of the Vehicle Code, or a local
ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, as specified.
2) Requires penalty assessments collected as a result of this
bill to be deposited into the Traffic Safety Committee
Network Fund (Fund).
3) Requires moneys in the Fund, after deducting administrative
costs, not to exceed 2% of the amount of the Fund, be
allocated in a manner so that 85% is used for local traffic
safety programs approved by the county board of supervisors,
as specified, and 15% is deposited in the county's Courthouse
Construction Fund.
4) If the Fund is created by Santa Clara, requires the
establishment of a countywide community collaborative
committee to develop recommendations for funding the traffic
safety programs. Requires that committee to prepare a
strategic plan, a capital outlay program, and performance
standards as specified.
5) Requires Santa Clara to select programs for recipient
funding.
6) If the Fund is created by Santa Clara, requires it to submit
AB 117
Page 2
an annual report to the Legislature providing accountability
information on the Fund's project expenditures.
7) Sunsets the provisions of the bill January 1, 2013.
8) Makes a finding and declaration that Santa Clara County is in
jeopardy of losing its grant funding through the California
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and therefore a general
statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of the
specified section of the California Constitution and that the
special legislation in necessarily applicable only to Santa
Clara County.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Imposes a base fine, assessments, and other applicable fees
and penalties on a person upon a conviction of an offense
involving the unsafe operation of a motor vehicle.
2)Requires a state penalty to be levied, in the amount of $10
for every $10 or fraction thereof, on fines, penalties, or
forfeitures imposed and collected by the courts for criminal
offenses, including all offenses, except parking offenses as
defined, involving violations of the Vehicle Code or local
ordinances adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. Requires the
money collected from the penalty to be 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.
3)Requires, in each county, an additional penalty to be levied,
in the amount of $7 for every $10 or fraction thereof, and
collected together with and in the same manner as the amounts
established in #2) above, 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 ordinances adopted pursuant to the
Vehicle Code, except parking offenses, as specified.
Requires, if established by a county board of supervisors, the
money to be placed in one or more of the following funds: the
Courthouse Construction Fund, the Criminal Justice Facilities
Construction Fund, the Automated Fingerprint Identification
AB 117
Page 3
Fund, the Forensic Laboratory Fund, the Maddy Emergency
Medical Services Fund, or the DNA Identification Fund.
4)Authorizes counties to elect to levy an additional $2 for
every $10 in base fines for emergency medical services, and
requires the additional assessment to be deposited in local
Maddy emergency medical services funds, with 15% to be
directed to pediatric trauma services. Up to 10% of the funds
collected may be used for administrative expenses. These
provisions sunset on January 1, 2009.
5)Establishes OTS with responsibility for reducing fatalities,
injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes. Evaluates and approves county and community based
safety projects supported by federal funds.
6)Establishes the Judicial Council of California, empowered by
the California Constitution, as the policy-making body of
California's court system and is charged with improving the
administration of justice. It makes recommendations to the
courts as well as annual recommendations to the Governor and
Legislature. Further, it adopts and revises California Rules
of Court, which have the force of law, in the areas of court
administration, practice, and procedure, including education.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Purpose and Background: According to the author, "Cities and
counties bear the brunt of the cost of motor vehicle collisions
and their aftermath. This bill will provide much needed funding
for a proven community-based approach to traffic safety that
will reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with motor
vehicle accidents and in turn provide societal cost savings.
Since 1997, the Traffic Safe Communities Network (TSCN) in Santa
Clara County, which has been primarily funded through grants
from OTS, has provided comprehensive traffic safety programs,
coordinated education, enforcement, and engineering on a
countywide basis. The goal of the TSCN has been to prevent
motor vehicle traffic collisions which are among the leading
causes of unintentional injury and death in the county. Through
grant funding, Santa Clara County has been able to implement
AB 117
Page 4
several successful traffic safety projects, including drinking
and driving trials in high schools, seat belt awareness
campaigns, bicycle helmet and traffic safety education for
youth, red light running enforcement, and safe routes to school
campaigns. However, grant funding alone cannot continue to fund
these important efforts."
Office of Traffic Safety: OTS, within the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency, administers federal traffic
safety grants allocated to California. There are eight program
priority areas earmarked for grant funding: Alcohol and Other
Drugs, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety,
Emergency Medical Services, Traffic Records, Roadway Safety, and
Police Traffic Services. The goal of OTS is "to help local
communities develop traffic safety programs, which will
contribute to the reduction of the state's mileage death rate."
OTS funds community-based organizations for the conduct of a
variety of traffic safety activities that are designed to impact
local community and neighborhood traffic safety problems. In
addition, over $1.5 million in grant funding as requested by
TSCN over the past three years have been fully approved by OTS.
Also, the proposed Governor's Budget includes an additional $11
million for grant funding to OTS.
Penalty Assessments: In 1986, the Legislature enacted Senate
Concurrent Resolution 53, requiring the Office of the
Legislative Analyst (LAO) to study the statutory penalty
assessments that are levied by the courts on offenders and the
state programs that the funds support. The completed 1988 study
found a complicated system of collection and distribution of
penalty funds. Further, LAO was unable to fully identify the
source offenses that generated penalty revenues because of
limitations in most county collection systems.
According to the 1988 LAO study, penalty assessments were
established in 1953. At that time, a penalty assessment was
established at $1 for every $20 of basic fine, for most vehicle
code violations. Money collected from this original penalty
assessment was remitted by the courts via the counties to the
state for deposit into the General Fund. The General Fund then
transferred funds to the State School Fund which financed the
driver education programs of local school districts.
Since 1953, the penalty assessment rate, the types of offenses
AB 117
Page 5
subject to the assessments, and the number of programs financed
by them, have increased significantly. "Although the basic
structure of penalty assessments has remained unchanged since
1980, the Legislature has continued to increase both the penalty
assessment rate and the number of types of programs which are
financed by these assessments."
In September 2005, the Assembly Public Safety Committee asked
the California Research Bureau to revisit the issue of penalty
assessments by surveying county courts. The purpose of the
survey was to help the Legislature better understand the
problems county courts encounter when assessing, collecting, and
tracking the numerous penalty assessments and enhancements
imposed by law. Based on the survey, the California Research
Bureau found "that very little has changed since the LAO study.
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 statutes in 16
different codes in state law and are in addition to the many
fees, fines, and special penalties that local governments may
impose on most offenses. Criminal offenders and traffic
violators pay more than 240% in penalties over the original fine
for their offense." As an example, for a standard moving
vehicle violation, the base fine is $35. With the addition of
various penalty assessments and court security fee, the total
fine for a violator is $166. For a $100 moving vehicle
violation, the various penalty enhancements plus the $20 court
security fee costs a violator $400.
According the California Research Bureau, as more surcharges and
penalties have been imposed, the process has become even more
complicated. County courts now maintain two separate accounts
and the penalty assessment system has become exceedingly complex
over time. Accordingly, they list in their study as a
corrective option that the Legislature simplify and consolidate
state court fines, fees, penalties and assessments imposed on
criminal offenders and traffic violators.
In 1986, the Conference of State Court Administrators adopted
nationally recommended state standards for court costs,
surcharges, and fees. One of the major recommendations was to
discourage the use of surcharges to fund non-court related
programs and services. Many states, including California, are
AB 117
Page 6
using surcharges and fees as a way to fund non-court related
programs.
Pending study: AB 367 (de Leon) 2007, was recently introduced
that would establish a task force as specified to evaluate and
make recommendations to the Judicial Council by December 31,
2009, for consolidating and simplifying the imposition and
distribution of court-ordered debts. The bill is in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Support: Numerous local entities within Santa Clara County cite
their active participation in their TSCN, which has brought
together diverse groups with the common interest in reducing
traffic related injuries and deaths in the county. The
community collaborative includes representatives from health
care, law enforcement, bicycle and pedestrian safety advocacy
groups, engineering, transportation, schools, courts, and
others.
Further, TSCN has implemented several successful traffic safety
projects, including: Drinking and Driving trials in local high
schools; Seat Belt Awareness campaigns; Bicycle Helmet and
Traffic Safety Education for Youth; Red Light Enforcement; and
Safe Routes to School campaigns.
They indicate that these activities have been funded through
grants provided by the OTS; however, grant funding alone cannot
continue to fully fund these important programs.
Just one more penalty assessment or enough already? : The author
cites numerous studies and statistics in support of the proposal
to use traffic fine penalty enhancements to fund local traffic
safety programs. The penalty assessment on traffic violations
would provide a short-term, five-year funding for TSCN for its
local traffic safety programs and is a viable way to establish
program funding. Funding for local traffic safety programs
appears, in fact, to be deserving and worthwhile.
However, with the introduction of AB 367, the Judicial Council
is aware of the existing situation regarding the plethora of
penalty assessments and surcharges creating the existing complex
system of debt collection and revenue distribution. And, the
bill charges them to comprehensively make recommendations on
simplifying the state's criminal and traffic fine and penalty
assessments. Accordingly, it would appear that the addition of
AB 117
Page 7
more penalty enhancements may be premature in light of the
pending AB 367 and would exacerbate the current complex
situation of these court-ordered fines and penalties.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Sheriffs' Association
City of Los Altos Traffic Engineer
City of Moreno Valley
City of Sunnyvale
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093