HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07211987 - 1.35 To- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Phil .Batchelor, County Administrator
FROM;
Contra
ltra
July 13, 1987 Costa
DATE: CO �/
Legislation - AB 1223 (Calderon)
SUBJECT:
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a position in opposition to AB 1223 by Assemblyman Calderon
which would increase the penalty assessment on all criminal
offenses by $2. 00 for every $10. 00 or fraction thereof of fines,
penalties, and forfeitures imposed and collected by the courts
and require that the _$2 be transmitted to the State Restitution
Fund.
BACKGROUND:
Under current law a penalty assessment of $5 .00 for each $10. 00
or fraction thereof of fines, penalties and forfeitures imposed
and collected by the. court is imposed. Most of this money. is
transmitted to the State to be credited to a. variety of funds
including the Restitution Fund ( 22 . 12%) , Fish and Game
Preservation Fund ( . 38%) , Peace Officers' Training Fund ( 27 .75%) ,
Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund ( 29.73%) , Corrections
Training 'Fund ( 9.120) , Local Public Prosecutors and Public
Defenders Training Fund ( . 90%) and Victim - Witness Assistance
Fund ( 10. 0%) .
Assemblyman Calderon has introduced AB 1223 . AB 1223 would
increase this $5 penalty assessment to $7 with the entire $2
increase going to the Restitution Fund, which already receives
22.120 of the money deposited by the County in the Assessment
fund, from which these other distributions - are then made. Contra
Costa County is already sponsoring or supporting several penalty
assessment .bills to assist in meeting local needs for Courthouse
Construction and to assist in meeting the increasing
administrative costs of the courts, due in large part to
requirements imposed by state statutes. These local efforts
could easily be undermined by a successful effort to increase the
penalty assessment by $2 for the State' s Restitution Fund. While
we do not quarrel with the value of the Restitution Fund nor the
need to provide more money in the _fund we cannot support any such
effort if that effort will in any way jeopardize the County' s
efforts to meet local needs.
We must, therefore, recommend that the Board of Supervisors
oppose AB 1223 .
AB1223 has passed the Assembly and is now on referral to the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
S 1 GNATURE(S 1: ( .�%EJC �..4
ACTION OF BOARD ON _7J2Jg7 AtIPROVED AS RECG•MMENDED OTHER
County Administrator
Clerk-Administrator, Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court
Jackson/Barish & Associates
Assemblvman Calderon
Senator Boatwrinht & Senator Petris
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
2^ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DA�TQE�f SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED _ JUL �JV/
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY
—