BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 29
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 29 (Simitian) - As Amended: May 11, 2011
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:14-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill imposes additional requirements on the use of
automated traffic enforcement systems.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, potentially significant reduction in fine and penalty
revenues, possibly in the range of several million dollars
annually, (state and local special funds), to the extent that
the bill reduces use of automated traffic enforcement systems.
2)Partly offsetting reduction in court costs resulting from
fewer contested citations.
3)Minor costs to Judicial Council to approve forms and to
compile and maintain reports from operators of automated
traffic enforcement systems.
SUMMARY (continued)
Specifically, the bill:
1)Prohibits a governmental agency that proposes to operate an
automated traffic enforcement system from considering revenue
generation beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the
system, as a factor when considering whether to install such
as system.
2)Requires that, by no later than January 1, 2013, such a system
be identified by signs posted within 200 feet of an
intersection where a system is operating, visible from
SB 29
Page 2
directions where the automated system is being utilized.
Currently, these systems must be identified by signs posted at
each intersection (visible to traffic going in all directions)
or posted at all major entrances to the city.
3)Requires that, prior to installing a system after January 1,
2012, the government agency adopt a finding of fact
establishing that the system is needed at a specific location
for reasons related to safety.
4)Requires a notice to appear to include specified information,
including the method by which an alleged violator may view and
discuss with the issuing agency evidence of the violation.
5)Requires a government agency, when it contacts a registered
vehicle owner for the purpose of ascertaining the correct
identity of an alleged traffic violator, to make the owner
aware that he or she is not required to provide the
information and that failure to provide the information will
not result in additional responsibility or liability
associated with the alleged violation.
6)Requires a courtesy notice of an alleged violation, as of
January 1, 2013, to be on a form approved by Judicial Council
and to include specified information.
7)Requires a manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated
traffic enforcement system to submit an annual report to
Judicial Council that includes- to the extent this information
is readily available to the manufacturer or
supplier-information on (a) the number of alleged violations,
(b) the number of citations issued by type of violation, (c)
the number and percentage of citations dismissed by court, and
(d) traffic collisions at each intersection occurring before
and after the installation of the system.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, the bill is intended to
ensure that automated traffic enforcement systems are operated
for safety, not revenue, and that due process is afforded for
citations issued as a result of operation of these systems.
2)Background . Automated enforcement systems have been authorized
for use by local governments since 1998. Current law
SB 29
Page 3
authorizes use of these systems subject to various
requirements relating to posting of signs to notify motorists
of the presence of the system, adherence to traffic signal
timing and intervals standards, and confidentiality of data
collected by the system. Current law also prohibits a contract
between a government agency and a manufacturer or supplier of
automated traffic enforcement equipment from including
provisions for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer
or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as
a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use
of the equipment.
3)Related Legislation. This bill is substantially the same as SB
1362 (Simitian, 2010), which was held by this committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081