BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair A
2007-2008 Regular Session B
1
1
7
AB 117 (Beall)
As Amended March 22, 2007
Hearing date: June 26, 2007
Penal Code
MK:mc
TRAFFIC OFFENSES: ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1773 (Alarcon) - Ch. 841, Statutes 2006
SB 635 (Dunn) - Ch. 524, Statutes 2004
SB 807 (Dunn) - vetoed 2002
AB 1398 (Florez) - not heard Senate Public Safety
2002
AB 1685 (Thomson) - failed Senate Public Safety
8-6-02
SB 1489 (Perata) - to the Governor 2002
SB 776 (Torlakson) - Ch. 857, Statutes 2001
(increase in DUI fines removed in Senate Public
Safety)
AB 2592 (Maddox) - failed Senate Public Safety
6-4-02
AB 2288 (Aguiar) - Ch. 884, Statutes 1996
SB 833 - Ch. 922, Statutes 1995
SB 1738 - Ch. 1221, Statutes 1994
AB 5 - Ch. 3, Statutes 1959
Support: City of Moreno Valley; Santa Clara County; City of
Sunnyvale; National Traffic Safety Institute; American
Medical Response; City of Los Altos; Santa Clara Valley
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageB
Medical Center; Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety;
California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:Judicial Council; Governor's Office of Planning and
Research
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 46 - Noes 32
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD SANTA CLARA COUNTY, BY ORDINANCE, BE PERMITTED TO IMPOSE AN
ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF $2 FOR EVERY $10 ON THE BASE FINE FOR ANY
VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION TO BE USED FOR PROGRAMS THAT INCREASE LOCAL
TRAFFIC SAFETY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow Santa Clara County to
impose a 20% assessment on Vehicle Code violations in the county
to be deposited in a fund to be used to fund local programs that
increase traffic safety.
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%).
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageC
(Penal Code 1464.)
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: Courthouse Construction Fund; a Criminal
Justice Facilities Construction Fund; Automated Fingerprint
Identification Fund; Emergency Medical Services Fund; DNA
Identification Fund. (Government Code 76000 et seq.)
Existing law provides that 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 sunsets on
July 1, 2007. All money collected shall be deposited in the
General Fund. (Penal Code 1465.7.)
Existing law , as a part of the Trial Court Facilities Act of
2002 (AB 1732 - Escutia), 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
70372.)
Existing law 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
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageD
security. This provision took effect immediately. (Penal
Code 1465.8.)
Existing law , under Prop 69, Nov. 2004, levied 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 DNA databank
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 will go to local
governments. (Government Code 76104.6.)
Existing law , under SB 1773 (Alarcon) Chapter 841, Statutes
2006, created an additional penalty assessment of $2 on
every $10 to support emergency medical services. (Government
Code 7600.5.)
This bill provides that Santa Clara County may by ordinance levy
an additional assessment of $2 for every $10 or fraction
thereof, upon each base fine imposed and collected by the courts
for an offense involving the unsafe operation of a motor vehicle
upon the highways in violation of the Vehicle Code or a local
ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, not including
parking violations.
This bill provides that the assessments shall be collected only
if the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors provides that the
increased assessments do not offset or reduce the funding of
other local traffic safety programs from other sources, and
these additional revenues result in increased funding to local
traffic safety programs and courthouse construction.
This bill provides that if Santa Clara County enacts an
ordinance under this bill, the county shall establish a Traffic
Safety Committee Network Fund (fund) for purposes of receiving
deposits and funding expenditures.
This bill provides that the administrative costs of running the
fund shall not exceed 2%.
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageE
This bill provides that all interest earned on money in the fund
shall be deposited in the fund for expenditure and disbursement
as specified.
This bill provides that money in the fund shall be allocated as
follows:
85% shall be used for local traffic safety programs
approved by the board of supervisors.
15% shall be deposited in the county's Courthouse
Construction Fund.
This bill provides that if the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors establishes a Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund,
the county board of supervisors shall create a countywide
community collaboration committee for the purpose of developing
recommendations for traffic safety programs.
This bill provides that prior to the disbursement of funds from
the Traffic Safety Committee Network Fund, the county board of
supervisors shall require the countywide community collaboration
committee to prepare and submit to the board for the board's
approval all the following:
A strategic plan for implementation.
A capital outlay program that identifies state, local
and community - based infrastructure needs.
Performance standards or outcome measures.
This bill provides that eligible funding programs are programs
that increase local traffic safety and reduce related personal
injuries and fatalities through existing local traffic safety
programs or the creation of new local traffic safety programs.
This bill provides that if the board of supervisors establishes
a Traffic Safety Community Network Fund it shall on or before
the fifth legislative day of 2008, and each year thereafter,
submit a report to the Legislature that includes but is not
limited to a detailed report of the program, which shall include
whether or not fund usage was in accordance with this bill and
legal requirements. The report shall also include the following:
A listing of the projects, programs, or other authorized
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageF
activities funded and a description of each project funded,
as well as the amounts expended for each project.
The ongoing in-progress actions taken to ensure that
funded projects and activities are within the scope and
cost projections of those projects and activities.
The results of the completed projects, programs, or
other authorized activities funded.
This bill provides that if a county establishes a Traffic Safety
Committee Network Fund pursuant to this section, the assessment
imposed shall be deposited in the Traffic Safety Committee
Network Fund in the county treasury.
This bill has a sunset of January 1, 2013.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California currently faces an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity is
nearly exhausted as prisons today are being operated with a
significant level of overcrowding. <1> In addition,
California's jails likewise are significantly overcrowded.
Twenty California counties are operating under jail population
caps. According to the State Sheriffs' Association, "counties
are currently releasing 18,000 pre and post-sentenced inmates
every month and many counties are so overcrowded they do not
accept misdemeanor bookings in any form, . . . ." <2> In
January of this year the Legislative Analyst's office summarized
the trajectory of California's inmate population over the last
two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
--------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007).
<2> Memorandum from CSSA President Gary Penrod to Governor,
February 14, 2007.
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageG
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<3>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
--------------------
<3> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageH
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<4>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
In February of 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to
take over the direct management and operation of the prison
medical health care delivery system from the state. Motions
filed in December of 2006 are now pending before three federal
court judges in which plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered
limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Medical, mental health and dental care
programs at CDCR each are "currently under varying levels of
federal court supervision based on court rulings that the state
has failed to provide inmates with adequate care as required
under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts
found key deficiencies in the state's correctional programs,
including: (1) an inadequate number of staff to deliver health
care services, (2) an inadequate amount of clinical space within
prisons, (3) failures to follow nationally recognized health
care guidelines for treating inmate-patients, and (4) poor
coordination between health care staff and custody staff."<5>
This bill will not aggravate the prison and jail overcrowding
---------------------------
<4> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
<5> Primer, supra fn. 4.
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageI
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
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 MVA's and in
turn provide societal cost savings.
2. Additional 20% Assessment
This bill provides that the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors may elect to levy an additional penalty of $2 for
every $10 on all offenses dealing with the Vehicle Code,
including local ordinances, except parking offenses. The
additional assessment shall be deposited in a Traffic Safety
Committee Network Fund to be used to fund local programs that
increase local traffic safety and reduce related personal
injuries and fatalities. This will raise the existing penalty
assessments in Santa Clara County for these violations to
approximately 290% of the base fine.
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 fund support.
The completed 1988 study found a complicated system of
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageJ
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
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
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageK
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
using surcharges and fees as a way to fund non-court related
programs.
IS A NEW ASSESSMENT AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO RAISE FUNDS FOR
HIGHWAY SAFETY MEASURES?
(More)
WILL AN ASSESSMENT ON VEHICLE CODE, BUT NOT OTHER OFFENSES IN
JUST ONE COUNTY FURTHER COMPLICATE THE COURT'S ABILITY TO
COLLECT FINES?
4. Support
Supporters of this bill, including the City of Sunnyvale, point
to the Traffic Safe Communities Network in Santa Clara County,
"which has brought together diverse groups with the common
interest in reducing traffic related injuries and deaths in our
county." They state that the Traffic Safe Communities Network
has implemented several traffic safety projects. The projects
have been funded through grants provided by the California
Office of Traffic Safety, but supporters state that grants alone
cannot continue to fully fund the projects.
ARE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR FUNDING THESE
PROJECTS?
5. Opposition
The Judicial Council opposes this bill stating:
[E]nacting additional penalties restricted to specific
jurisdictions rather than statewide will add to the
confusion of the current fine and penalty structure.
California's complex criminal and traffic-related fine
system puts judges and court staff in the position of
calculating complicated fines and imposing on the
defendant a confusing punishment system. In addition,
fines that are imposed only in designated geographical
areas require the local court to implement changes to
their case management systems, which increases costs to
the system.
The Judicial Council is sponsoring legislation in 2007
(AB 367, De Leon) to, among other things, create a Task
Force on Delinquent Fines and Penalties. The task force
will examine and make recommendations for simplifying
(More)
AB 117 (Beall)
PageM
the criminal and traffic-related fine and penalty
assessments, collection, and distribution system. The
council recommends that this work be completed to bring
much-needed uniformity to the state's criminal and
traffic-related fine structure.
BEFORE ADDITIONAL PENALTY ASSESSMENTS ARE ADDED, SHOULD THE
EXISTING USE OF PENALTY ASSESSMENTS BE EVALUATED?
***************