BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 881
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 881
(Hertzberg) - As Amended June 29, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Transportation |Vote:|11 - 4 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Public Safety | | 5 - 2 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill makes changes to existing law relating to suspended
licenses for individuals who have failed to pay (FTP) a traffic
fine or failed to appear (FTA) in court. Specifically, this
bill:
SB 881
Page 2
1)Prohibits the court from imposing a $300 civil assessment for
a FTP or FTA, unless the defendant willfully fails to appear
or pay.
2)Requires county or court "comprehensive collection programs"
to provide payment plans based on the debtor's ability to pay,
and prohibits a county or court from initiating driver's
license suspension or hold actions as part of a comprehensive
collection program.
3)Applies same criteria to qualify for payment plans per (2) as
is used under current law to qualify for waiver of court fees.
4)Repeals provisions requiring the DMV to suspend a person's
driver's license upon notification from the court of a FTP or
FTA, and requires the DMV to restore all driving privileges
suspended as a result of a FTA or FTP by July 1, 2017.
5)Prohibits the DMV from suspending a driver's license upon
notice from a court of a person's FTA or FTP.
6)Directs the DMV, upon notice from the court that the
individual has an FTA on specified vehicle offenses, to limit
an individual's privilege to operate a vehicle to driving for
employment or medical purposes for a period of six months and
allows the restriction on driving privileges to be removed if
the individual appears in court, resolves the case, or
SB 881
Page 3
otherwise satisfies the court's order.
7)Specifies that the bill does not apply to license suspensions
related to specified reckless driving or
driving-under-the-influence violations.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Revenue Impact. In 2013-14, about $675 million in delinquent
court-ordered debt was collected statewide. This revenue is
allocated among the courts, the state, and local governments
and funds a variety of programs. With license suspension no
longer a means of incentivizing payment of delinquent
debt-particularly among those with the ability to pay their
debts-and to the extent other authorized means of collection
are less effective, there will be a reduction in debt
collection revenue. This impact is unknown, but even a
percentage reduction in single digits would total tens of
millions of dollars annually. Offsetting this reduction to
some extent should be an increase in debt collected through
payment plans established for qualifying individuals.
2)Court Costs. Unknown major costs, potentially in the millions
of dollars annually statewide, to conduct hearings to
determine willfulness when there is a FTA.
3)Fee Waivers. The Judicial Council contends that the bill's
provisions regarding payment plans, which references existing
statutes regarding court fee waivers, could be interpreted to
allow for a waiver of fines and penalty assessments. The
Council estimates a resulting revenue loss, from reduced
collections, of $94 million to $236 million. It is staff's
SB 881
Page 4
understanding that a waiver is neither the author's nor the
proponents' intent, which amendments can clarify.
4)The DMV will incur one-time costs of around $250,000 to
terminate the existing FTA/FTP suspensions, modify programming
to stop taking suspension actions going forward, and impose a
restriction on the driver license of a person reported as
failing to appear for a traffic ticket. DMV estimates that
approximately 550,000 drivers may be eligible to apply for a
driver license as a result of having their suspension for
FTA/FTPs terminated, which may require an undetermined amount
of additional staffing to process this workload, depending on
the timing of when these individuals seek a driver license.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Judicial Council annually adopts a uniform traffic
penalty schedule for all non-parking infractions outlined in
the Vehicle Code. Due to additional surcharges, penalties,
and assessments, a base fine of $100, for example, often
results in a total fine of $541. For many individuals, costly
traffic fines such as these can become prohibitively
expensive. If a person fails to pay these fines, or if they
fail to appear in court, the court can add up to a $300 "civil
assessment." Moreover, the court notifies the DMV, which
results in suspension of the person's driver's license.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "Millions of Californians
cannot afford the cost of even minor traffic violations.
Current law allows the courts to suspend those peoples'
driving right for failure to pay. Most of these folks are not
unwilling to pay their debts, but simply unable. Taking one's
license - and generally one's ability to find and retain work
- does nothing to enforce collection of court-ordered debt. In
fact, 88% of people with a suspended license lose their
SB 881
Page 5
income. The practice costs taxpayers by crowding county jails,
reduces state revenues, and is not an effective debt
collection tool for low-income Californians."
3)Prior Legislation. The 2015-16 Budget Act authorized an
18-month traffic amnesty program for delinquent debt. Under
this program, the $300 civil assessment imposed by collection
programs for an FTA or FTP is waived. Further, individuals
also receive a 50% reduction in the total amount of
court-ordered debt owed for traffic infractions and certain
traffic misdemeanors, provided specified criteria are met. In
addition, participants in the amnesty program, as well as
individuals currently making payments for certain violations
included in the amnesty program, can have their driver's
licenses reinstated.
SB 405 (Hertzberg), Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015, required
courts to allow court proceedings to be scheduled, even if
bail or civil assessments are imposed, thereby allowing
individuals to challenge traffic citations without first
posting bail or paying fees.
4)Opposition. The California Association of Counties (CSAC)
argues that the bill removes a tool for the courts to collect
fines and fees, eliminates an incentive for individuals to pay
outstanding debt, and does not address the underlying problem
of exorbitant fines and assessments. CSAC argues for devising
a more comprehensive solution to this problem.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 881
Page 6