BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
4
1
2
AB 412 (Williams)
As Amended May 27, 2011
Hearing date: July 5, 2011
Government Code; Vehicle Code
MK:mc
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
HISTORY
Source: California Chapter of the American College of Emergency
Physicians
Prior Legislation: AB 1900 (Nava) - Ch. 323, Stats. 2008
AB 2265 (Nava) - Ch. 768, Stats. 2006
SB 57 (Alarcon) - vetoed, 2005
SB 635 (Dunn) - Ch. 524, Stats. 2004
SB 807 (Dunn) - vetoed, 2002
AB 1398 (Florez) - not heard Senate Public Safety,
2002
AB 1685 (Thomson) - failed Senate Public Safety
2002
SB 1489 (Perata) -to the Governor, 2002
SB 776 (Torlakson) - Ch. 857, Stats. 2001 (increase
in DUI fines removed in Senate Public Safety)
AB 2592 (Maddox) - failed Senate Public Safety,
2002
AB 2288 (Aguiar) - Ch. 884, Stats. 1996
SB 833 - Ch. 922, Stats. 1995
SB 1738 - Ch. 1221, Stats. 1994
AB 5 - Ch. 3, Stats. 1959
Support: County of Santa Barbara; California Medical Association
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 2
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 72 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE ADDITIONAL PENALTY ASSESSMENT ON CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND
DUI RELATED VEHICLE OFFENSES IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY BE REENACTED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to reenact the penalty assessment on
criminal offenses and specified DUI related violations in Santa
Barbara County to be used for trauma care.
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%); Restitution Fund (32.02%); Peace
Officers Training Fund (23.99%); Driver Training Penalty
Assessment Fund (25.70%); Corrections Training Fund (7.88%);
Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund (0.78%, not
to exceed $850,000 per year); Victim-Witness Assistance Fund
(8.64%); and the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund (0.66%). (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
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 3
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 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. All money collected shall be
deposited in the General Fund. (Penal Code § 1465.7.)
Existing law provides, as a part of the Trial Court Facilities
Act of 2002 (SB 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 dependent 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 provides, 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 § 1465.8.)
Existing law in 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
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 4
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 , in SB 1773 (Alarcon), Chapter 841, Statutes of
2006, created an additional penalty assessment of $2 on every
$10 to support emergency medical services. SB 1236 (Padilla),
which is currently on the Assembly Floor, extends this
provision. (Government Code § 7600.5.)
Existing law provides that except as otherwise provided in this
section, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
purposes of supporting emergency medical services pursuant to
Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797.98a) of Division 2.5
of the Health and Safety Code, in Santa Barbara County, a
penalty in the amount of five dollars ($5.00) for every ten
dollars ($10.00), or part of ten dollars ($10), shall be
imposed on every fine, penalty, or forfeiture collected for all
criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation
of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to
the Vehicle Code. This penalty assessment shall be collected
together with and in the same manner as the amount established
by Section 1464 of the Penal Code:
(2) The penalty imposed by this section does not apply
to the following:
(A) Any restitution fine.
(B) Any penalty authorized by Section 1464 of the
Penal Code or this chapter.
(C) Any parking offense subject to Article 3
(commencing with Section 40200) of Chapter 1 of
Division 17 of the Vehicle Code.
(D) The state surcharge authorized by Section 1465.7
of the Penal Code. (Government Code § 76104.1(a).)
This bill provides that the $5 for every $10 penalty assessment
shall apply to every criminal fine, penalty, or forfeiture and
to specified DUI related Vehicle Code offenses.
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 5
This bill sunsets the above provisions on January 1, 2014.
Existing law provides that notwithstanding any provision of law
to the contrary, in the County of Santa Barbara, the 17%
distribution set forth in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (5) of
subdivision (b) of Section 1797.98a shall not apply.
(Government Code § 76104.1 (d)(2).)
This bill provides that in Santa Barbara County, upon the
establishment of a Maddy Emergency Medical Services (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. (Vehicle Code §
42007.5(a).)
This bill provides that the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Santa Barbara shall report to the Legislature whether, and to
the extent that any actions are taken by the County of Santa
Barbara to implement alternative local sources of funding.
(Vehicle Code § 42007.5 (b).)
This bill sunsets the above provisions on January 1, 2014.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 6
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Assembly Bill 412 reinstates section 1797.98a of
division 2.5 of the Health and Safety Code which had a
sunset date of January 1, 2011. AB 412 will allow the
County of Santa Barbara to participate in the Maddy
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fund. The penalty
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 7
assessments will be on DUI and DUI-related violations
as well as criminal offenses.
This bill would authorize Santa Barbara County to
impose an additional penalty assessment of $5 for
every $10 in base fines, on every fine, penalty, or
forfeiture collected for criminal offenses, but would
restrict the Vehicle Code violations for which the
assessment could be imposed to driving under the
influence violations and related vehicle fines, for
the purposes of supporting the Maddy EMS fund.
Counties do not have the authority to raise penalty
assessments at the local level and need to ask the
state for such authority. In 1987, SB 12 granted a
penalty assessment for counties to use for either
funding the emergency medical services fund or
courthouse construction. At the time this passed
Santa Barbara County did not have a trauma center.
The funding went into Santa Barbara County's aging
court system. Since then, Santa Barbara County's
Cottage Hospital developed a Level II Trauma Center
and a number of residents of Santa Barbara County are
relying on emergency medicine as their primary source
of medical care creating a burden on the County's
hospital and the one of two trauma center on the
Central Coast. Santa Barbara County must come to the
legislature and request the authority to raise penalty
assessments to cover the cost of its aging emergency
medical facilities.
Previous legislation creating the additional $5 fee
assessment and extending the sunset on the fee
included the requirement that the County of Santa
Barbara place a local revenue measure on the ballot to
address the shortage of emergency care funding.
In 2008, the county placed a parcel tax on the ballot.
The measure received 46% of the vote and failed. In
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 8
2010, the county placed a sales tax on the November
ballot to increase funding for public safety programs.
This measure failed as well. Due to unsuccessful
efforts to raise the money locally, increased strain
on emergency room services by uninsured patients and
considering this is the only Level II trauma center
for over 160 miles; California must act to reestablish
this funding mechanism.
2. History of Additional Penalty Assessment in Santa Barbara
County
According to the Senate Public Safety analysis of SB 635 (Dunn),
Chapter 524, Statutes of 2004, which originally created the
penalty assessment for Santa Barbara County:
(More)
The supporters of this bill argue that this assessment
is necessary to keep the trauma center at Cottage
Hospital in Santa Barbara operating. They argue that
this is important because it is the only Trauma Center
between San Jose and Los Angeles. While acknowledging
that Santa Barbara County has chosen to use the existing
assessments that could have gone to create a Maddy EMS
fund for courthouse construction and criminal justice
purposes, they argue that the trauma center at Cottage
Hospital is the only one that does not have access to a
Maddy EMS Fund. Supporters further note that this bill
sunsets in January 2007 and is only intended to be a
temporary fix. (emphasis added)
Following a Senate Public Safety hearing on concurrence where
questions regarding whether this provision was truly a temporary
measure, Senator Dunn submitted a letter to the Senate Journal
since it was not possible to amend the bill while on
concurrence. The letter to the Journal dated August 26, 2004,
in pertinent part, reads:
I respectfully request permission to clarify the intent
of Sec. 4 subdivision (b) contained in Senate Bill 635.
This is in response to an issue raised in the Senate
Public Safety Committee when the bill returned to the
Senate for concurrence.
The bill requires the Board of Supervisors of Santa
Barbara County to report to the Legislature whether, and
to what extent that, actions are taken by the county to
implement alternative local sources of funding for
emergency medical services.
It is the intent of the author of SB 635, Senate Joseph
Dunn, that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara
County place a measure on the Santa Barbara County
ballot as soon as possible, but no later than November
2006, that will raise funds for emergency medical
services.
(More)
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 10
AB 2265 (Nava) Chapter 323, Statutes of 2006, contained
legislative declarations and findings which stated:
The County of Santa Barbara requires additional time to
develop an appropriate local funding measure to fund the
Level II Trauma Center in Santa Barbara County.
The Legislature, in extending the repeal date of Section
76104.1 of the Government Code and Section 42007.5 of the
Vehicle Code, expects that the County of Santa Barbara
shall place an appropriate proposed tax ordinance as a
county measure on the ballot for the November 2008 election
that will ensure the collection of sufficient funds to
fully support the trauma center.
According to the Senate Public Safety analysis of AB 2265 (Nava)
in 2006, the County of Santa Barbara stated in their draft
report to the Legislature on SB 635 that they could not put the
Maddy Fund on the ballot for November 2006 because of competing
interests including an extension of a sales tax for
transportation funding that expired in April of 2010, and a
construction fund to deal with jail overcrowding. They stated
that the extension of the sunset will give them time to increase
critical awareness of the need for emergency room/trauma center
funding without decreasing the chance of the other competing
measures passing by placing too many on the ballot at once.
The sunset on the penalty assessment was again extended in 2008
by AB 1900 (Nava), although at that time the assessment was
limited to criminal offenses and DUI related Vehicle Code
violations. That provision sunseted on January 1, 2011.
According to the County of Santa Barbara and the sponsor, an
increase in the sales tax was placed on the ballot in Santa
Barbara and failed, thus that is not a viable alternative to
reenacting the penalty assessment.
3. Reenactment of the Penalty Assessment
AB 412 (Williams)
Page 11
This bill reenacts the $5 for every $10 assessment on every
criminal fine and DUI related Vehicle Code violations. This
penalty assessment is in addition to the existing approximately
270% penalty assessments. Thus, while the $1,000 fine for a DUI
in other counties is actually a fine of approximately $3,700, in
Santa Barbara County the fine would be $4,200 in addition to
other penalty and fees. The money will go into the Maddy
Emergency Services fund in Santa Barbara County.
According to the sponsor of the bill, the money raised from the
assessment, before it sunseted, was a steady form of revenue for
emergency services in Santa Barbara.
SHOULD THE PENALTY ASSESSMENT FOR SANTA BARBARA'S EMS FUND BE
REENACTED?
***************