BILL ANALYSIS AB 117 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 8, 2007 Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Jose Solorio, Chair AB 117 (Beall) - As Amended: March 22, 2007 SUMMARY : 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. Specifically, this bill : 1)Allows the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Santa Clara County) 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 to be deposited into the Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund. 3) Mandates moneys in the Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund, after deducting administrative costs, not to exceed 2% of the amount of the Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund, be allocated in a manner so that 85% is used for local traffic safety programs approved by the Santa Clara County, as specified, and 15% is deposited in the county's Courthouse Construction Fund. 4)States if the Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund is created by Santa Clara County, it must establish a countywide community collaborative committee to develop recommendations for funding the traffic safety programs. The committee is to prepare a strategic plan, a capital outlay program and performance standards, as specified. 5)Requires Santa Clara County to select programs for recipient funding. AB 117 Page 2 6)States if the Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund is created by Santa Clara County, it must submit an annual report to the Legislature before the fifth legislative day of 2008 and each year thereafter, providing accountability information on the Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund's project expenditures. The report is to include, but is not limited to, a detailed report of the program, including statements to the effect of whether or not fund usage is in accordance with the requirements of this bill, as specified. 7)Sunsets on January 1, 2013. 8)Declares 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)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: the Courthouse Construction Fund, Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund, Automated Fingerprint Identification Fund, EMS Fund, or DNA Identification Fund. (Government Code Section 76000.) AB 117 Page 3 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.) 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 Emergency Medical Services 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 Section 1797.98a et seq. and Government Code Section 76104.) FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : 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 AB 117 Page 4 associated with motor vehicle accidents and in turn provide societal cost savings. I am pleased to carry this measure! This much-needed infusion of capitol will save lives through encouraging cities and counties to adopt a community approach to traffic safety. This bill will provide additional monies to both cities and counties that will be used to decrease motor vehicle crashes and their associated deaths and injuries, through an assessment on traffic fines that actually 'makes sense.' Imagine, using traffic fines and assessments on traffic fines to combat motor vehicle crashes. 2)OTS : 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. 3)History of 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, the 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 AB 117 Page 5 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 rates, the types of offenses 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 250% 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 AB 117 Page 6 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 using surcharges and fees as a way to fund non-court related programs. 4)Existing Penalty Assessments : Under current law, penalty assessments applied to every fine are up to 250% plus $20. The penalty assessments have been increasing over time, from 50% in 1983 to 250% today. The existing penalty assessments are as follows: a) State Penalty Assessment - 100% : Existing law provides for an additional "state penalty" of $10 for every $10 or fraction thereof, 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. Of the money collected, 70% is transmitted to the state and 30% remains with the county. The state portion of the money collected from the penalty is distributed in specified percentages among: the Fish and Game Preservation Fund (0.33%); the Restitution Fund (32.02%); the Peace Officers Training Fund (23.99%); the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund (25.70%); the Corrections Training Fund (7.88%); the Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund (0.78%, not to exceed $850,000 per year); the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund (8.64%); and the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund (0.66%). (Penal Code Section 1464.) b) County Penalty Assessment - 70% : Existing law provides for an additional county penalty assessment of $7 for every $10 or fraction 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: the Courthouse Construction Fund, Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund, Automated Fingerprint Identification AB 117 Page 7 Fund, EMS Fund, or DNA Identification Fund. (Government Code Section 76000 et seq.) c) State Surcharge - 20% : As a part of the 2002-03 Budget Act, the Legislature imposed a temporary state surcharge of 20% on every base fine collected by the court. The surcharge took effect on September 30, 2002 and all money collected shall be deposited in the General Fund. (Penal Code Section 1465.7.) d) State Court Facilities Construction - 50% : Two years ago, as a part of the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 [SB 1732 (Escutia), Chapter 1022, Statutes of 2002], the Legislature established the "State Court Facilities Construction Fund" and added 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.) e) Court Security - $20 : Finally, as part of the 2003-04 Budget, the Legislature approved a flat fee of $20 on every conviction for a criminal offense to ensure adequate funding for court security. This provision took effect immediately. (Penal Code Section 1465.8.) f) Proposition 69 (November 2004) - 10% : Proposition 69 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 implementation purposes - the state will receive 70% of these funds in the first two years, 50% in the third year and 25% annually thereafter. The remainder is disbursed to local governments. (Government Code Section 76104.6.) 5)Pending Study : AB 367 (de Leon) establishes a task force as specified to evaluate and make recommendations to the Judicial Council by December 31, 2009 for consolidating and simplifying AB 117 Page 8 the imposition and distribution of court-ordered debts. AB 367 pending hearing by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. 6)Prior Legislation : a) SB 57 (Alarc?n), of the 2005-05 Legislative Session, would have allowed a county board of supervisors to impose an additional penalty of 20% on every fine or penalty imposed for criminal offenses and Vehicle Code violations. SB 57 was vetoed. b) SB 1773 (Alarc?n), Chapter 841, Statutes of 2006, 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. 7)Arguments in Support : According to the National Traffic Safety Institute , "NTSI has been leader in Traffic Safety Programs in Santa Clara County and throughout California and the Untied States for over 30 years. NTSI has been involved in such important programs as 'Avoid the 13' and 'Sober Graduation', and we know a Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund will continue to enhance these successful programs. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support American Medical Response California State Sheriffs' Association City of Los Altos, Department of Public Works City of Moreno Valley City of Sunnyvale County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors National Traffic Safety Institute Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Sunnyvale Police Department One private citizen Opposition Judicial Council 2 private citizens AB 117 Page 9 Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744