HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05032011 - C.33RECOMMENDATION(S):
SUPPORT Assembly Bill 1053 (Gordon): Local Government Penalties and Fees, a bill that
raises criminal laboratory analysis fee for each separate controlled substance offense,
provides an increase in fees for fetal death or death record and a certified copy of a birth
certificate, adds specified reckless driving convictions to convictions eligible for the
additional penalty, rand aises the registration fee for a petition filed to make a minor a ward
of the court when the minor is represented by appointed counsel, as recommended by the
Legislation Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
AB 1053 has the following fiscal impact:
1) Increases the criminal laboratory analysis fee from $50 per conviction to $100 per
conviction.
2) Changes the alcohol-content testing fee to a chemical testing fee so as to include testing
for the presence of drugs, increases the fee from $50 to $100, and adds reckless driving as a
qualifying offense.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/03/2011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I
Supervisor
Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: L. DeLaney,
925-335-1097
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 3, 2011
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Carrie Del Bonta, Deputy
cc:
C. 33
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Legislation Committee
Date:May 3, 2011
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:SUPPORT AB 1053 (Gordon): Local Government Penalties and Fees
3) Increases the registration
FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D)
fee for use of public defender services by juveniles from a maximum fee of $25 to a
maximum fee of $50.
4) Increases the base fees for obtaining death or birth certificates by $9.
BACKGROUND:
Summary: Raises criminal laboratory analysis fee for each separate controlled substance
offense. Provides an increase in fees for fetal death or death record and a certified copy of
a birth certificate. Adds specified reckless driving convictions to convictions eligible for
the additional penalty. Raise the registration fee for a petition filed to make a minor a
ward of the court when the minor is represented by appointed counsel.
This measure is sponsored by CSAC. Contra Costa County staff in the Sheriff’s Office,
Clerk-Recorder’s Office, and EHSD (Zero Tolerance Program) have reviewed the bill
and provided comments to the CAO’s office. The Legislation Committee considered the
bill at its April 28, 2011 meeting and recommends that the Board of Supervisors support
it.
The Sheriff’s Office staff supports the bill. The Contra Costa's Crime Lab indicates that
the cost for the Alcohol testing is $171 per case and the cost for the Drug Analysis is
$220. Cost for the drug analysis can be higher depending on the number of drugs that
have to be tested for.
The Clerk-Recorder’s Office noted that our County’s vital record fees were increased in
January 2009 to the highest in the State and nearly at full recovery. AB 1053 would
increase the costs of our certified copies of birth and death certificates to $31 (birth) and
$24 (death). It would yield approximately $150k to the office. With regard to the Zero
Tolerance Program, which receives a portion of the vital records fees to fund the program
(currently $3), AB 1053 would not amend Health and Safety Code section 103626 or
Welfare and Institutions Code section 18038 (both included in SB 968). Thus, the actual
code sections for SB 968 are not impacted.
It is important to note that the Assembly Member Gordon has agreed to amend the
measure as it relates to the alcohol and drug lab fee components. In its introduced form,
AB 1053 would increase the fees for analysis charged to an offender from $50 to $200
for a variety of offenses specified both in Penal Code Section 1463.14 and Health and
Safety Code Section 11372.5.
As agreed when the measure was heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, the
lab analysis fees will instead be increased from $50 to $100.
With regard to the question of the Proposition 26 (2010) issues, CSAC staff notes that
there are specific exceptions in Prop. 26 for fees that are levied locally. They have
indicated where they believe the four fees proposed for increase by AB 1053 would
likely fall in these various exceptions. Note the distinction between lab analyses for
alcohol vs. drug offenses. The former fee is associated with an action of the BOS to
impose an additional penalty on those convicted of various DUI/reckless driving
offenses, whereas the latter for drug violations is imposed by the court. Legislative
Counsel has concurred with CSAC’s position with regard to the applicability of Prop. 22.
COMMENTS:
1) Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 676 (2009-Wolk) increased or
eliminated statutory limits on 11 different fees; many of these fees set by the Legislature
had not been updated in decades. Fees set by statue generally lack provisions for cost of
living adjustment, and the legislature must regularly revisit these various fees to ensure
they continue to accurately reflect actual costs. "The laboratory analysis fee is charged to
violators of specific Vehicle Code sections (reckless driving and DUI) and is used to
cover laboratory costs directly incurred in relation to the violators' cases; this fee has not
been adjusted since 1991. The criminalistics laboratories fund fee is charged, per
conviction, for drug related offenses; and has not been increased since it was created in
1980. Each of these lab fees, when adjusted, would still only cover a portion of the actual
costs incurred to do the associated lab work.
"The juvenile registration fee for public defender services has not been increased since
1996, though SB 676 increased the adult public defender registration fee from $25 to $50,
as this bill would do.
"The base vital records fees, for birth and death certificates, adjust periodically with the
consumer price index, but still fail to accurately reflect the cost of preparation. These
certificates are also subject to various add-on fees, including a temporary $2 add-on for
the Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program which is scheduled to expire in 2018.
"The full cost of providing these services is typically subsidized by a county's general
fund, which unfortunately puts pressure on other mandated county services. This bill
aims to grant counties some measure of relief and adjust these various fees to levels that
more accurately reflect the actual cost of providing the associated services."
2) Necessity for this Bill: This bill is premised on the fact that the fees require a
cost-of-living adjustment. Also, it is an open question why all counties are not taking full
advantage of their current statutory authorization to impose an additional penalty of $50
for alcohol-content testing. A recent case shows Orange County charges a $30 penalty,
rather than $50. See People v. Chikosi (2010) 185 Cal. App.4th 238, 246, (superseded by
grant of review, S184190).
3) The Laboratory Analysis Fee is Significant and Punitive: Although described as a
"fee," the criminal laboratory analysis fee is an increment of a fine and, as such, it is a
fine. Fines are generally considered punishment. The laboratory fee is imposed only upon
conviction of a criminal offense, applies to each separate conviction, and is mandatory
with the no-ability-to-pay provision. The funds from the fee are used for law enforcement
purposes, and there is no evidence the statute was a budget measure as with the court
security fee. People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal. App.4th 859, 869-870.
The amount of the fee plus its penalty assessments is significant. People v. Sharret, supra,
191 Cal. App.4th at p.870. It is subject to the following assessments: a $50 state penalty
under Penal Code Section 1464(a)(1); a $35 county penalty under Government Code
Section 76000(a)(1); a $10 state surcharge under Penal Code Section 1465.7(a); a $25
Government Code Section 70372(a)(1) state court-construction penalty; a $10
Government Code Section 76000.5(a)(1) emergency-medical-services penalty; a $5
Government Code Section 76104.6(a)(1) deoxyribonucleic-acid penalty; and a $5
Government Code Section 76104.7(a) state-only, deoxyribonucleic-acid penalty. See e. g.
People v. Knightbent (2010) 186 Cal. App.4th 1105, 1109. This means that the standard
lab fee of $50 is actually a fine of $180. These assessments are in addition to any
restitution ordered or any other fees required.
4) Effect of Including Reckless Driving Offense On Plea Bargaining: This bill adds
reckless driving to the Vehicle Code violations subjecting a defendant to the alcohol
analysis fee. Oftentimes, a person charged with a DUI offense will plead to a "wet
reckless," a charge of reckless driving which was alcohol related, in order to avoid some
of the consequences associated with a DUI conviction. The wet reckless charge carries no
mandatory alcohol education classes and no driver's license suspensions. For a driver
convicted of reckless driving who accept probation, a judge has the discretion to impose
no fine, but can levy a payment of up to $1,000. If probation is not granted, fines range
from $145 to $1,000. Query whether subjecting the offense to the testing fee and
associated penalties will cause disincentive for defendants to plead to this lesser-related
offense and increase the demands for trials?
5) Judicial Council Evaluating Penalty Assessments: The Judicial Council was authorized
to convene a task force to identify and evaluate all fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and
assessments currently in place. The funding for this task force was authorized in a budget
trailer bill, SB 857 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Statutes of 2010, Chapter
720. This task force is expected to present recommendations to Judicial Council and the
Legislature by June 30, 2011.
6) Argument in Support: According to the California State Association of Counties (the
sponsor of this bill), "The four fees addressed in your measure - related to vital records,
juvenile public defender registration, and laboratory analyses for various drug and
driving offenses - have not been increased in over 15, sometimes 20, years. . . . During
these very difficult fiscal times, counties are increasingly challenged as to how we can
continue delivering the range of vital public services we are asked to provide to the
public, a circumstances that is exacerbated when we are constrained by fee structures that
do not match the actual cost of service delivery. "Your measure would merely authorize
counties to charge a fee that more reasonably approaches the actual cost of providing a
service. In particular, the se fee increases would permit counties to:
1) process lab analyses to determine guilt and innocence, 2) represent juvenile defendants
to ensure equal access to justice, and 3) provide the public with vital records needed for a
range of governmental and other purposes without significant harm to the county general
fund and other vital county programs."
7) Argument in Opposition: According to the Drug Policy Alliance, "Penalties for drug
law violations - in terms of both fines/fees and incarceration - are already severe. There is
no basis in policy or principle for increasing these penalties still further. It does not
appear that these penalties would be increased because they would discourage drug use or
driving while intoxicated, not because California is broke - and being levied on those
least able to pay them.
"Fines and fees punish poor people more severely than people of means. Those who are
unable to pay their fines and fees may be unable to have their cases expunged and
records cleared. It may also delay their successful exit from the criminal justice system
and, if they fall behind on their payment schedule, they may ultimately be subject to
additional criminal penalties for failure to pay. All of this increases the criminal justice
involvement of poor people struggling with alcohol and drug problems, while state and
local government continues to slash the amount of funding it allocates to alcohol and drug
treatment.
"This bill is essentially a highly regressive tax, posing as public safety. And, as public
safety policy, it continues a pattern of excessive punishment instead of cost-effective
investment in community drug and alcohol treatment. We cannot balance the budget on
the backs of people addicted to drugs or alcohol."
8) Related Legislation:
a) AB 190 (Wieckowski) adds an additional penalty assessment of $3 to every fine,
penalty or forfeiture deposit imposed by any court on violations of specified Vehicle
Code sections. AB 190 has not been heard by this Committee.
b) AB 898 (Vallejo) increases the minimum restitution fine from $200 to $400 for a
felony and from $100 to $200 for a misdemeanor. AB 898 has not been heard by this
Committee.
9) Prior Legislation: SB 676 (Wolk), Chapter 606, Statutes of 2009, increased or
eliminated the maximum fee for various services provided by the county, city or court.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California State Association of Counties (Sponsor) ,Santa Clara Board of Supervisors,
Urban Counties Caucus
Opposition
Drug Policy Alliance
STATUS:
02/18/2011 INTRODUCED.
03/14/2011 To ASSEMBLY Committees on PUBLIC SAFETY and LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
04/12/2011 From ASSEMBLY Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY: Do pass as amended
to Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
04/26/2011 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee
on LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
VOTES:
04/12/2011 Assembly Public Safety Committee P 5-1
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The Board would not have an official position on record and could not advocate for the
enactment of the bill.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Corrected language: SUPPORT Assembly Bill 1053 (Gordon): Local Government
Penalties and Fees, a bill that raises criminal laboratory analysis fee for each separate
controlled substance offense, provides an increase in fees for fetal death or death
record and a certified copy of a birth certificate, adds specified reckless driving
convictions to convictions eligible for the additional penalty, and raises the registration fee
for a petition filed to make a minor a ward of the court when the minor is represented
by appointed counsel, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.
ATTACHMENTS
AB 1053 (Gordon) Bill Text