Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251996 - C83 - To: Board of Supervisors Contra C FROM: Warren E. Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner Costa • DATE: May 7, 1996 County SUBJECT: Approval to authorize the Municipal Court Administration to transfer the $50 fee assessment collected for under the influence convictions from the county fine and forfeiture account to the Sheriff's office Criminalistics Laboratory Special Alcohol Testing Account, SPECIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION Authorize the Municipal Court Administration to deposit the fifty dollars($50) assessment fee to the Sheriffs Office Criminalistics Laboratory special account for alcohol testing. The fees are currently being collected for driving under the influence convictions and deposited in the county fine and forfeiture account. This transfer of funds is pursuant to the passage of AB 129 (Rainey)which was sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and addresses Section 1463.14 of the Penal Code. AB 129 was passed and signed by the Governor effective January 1, 1996. II. FINANCIAL IMPACT Approval will allow the Sheriffs Office Criminalistics Laboratory to recover costs directly associated to the alcohol testing program. There are two sources of money associated with each conviction of a violation of driving under the influence;Sections 23103,23104,23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code. One is a $50 fine for each conviction of the above sections and the second is a $50 assessment fee that can be imposed by the County for violations of Sections 23152 or 23153. The Criminalistics Laboratory alcohol testing program costs approximately $330,000 annually. The laboratory currently receives about $60,000 a year from the first$50 which is taken out of the fine and forfeiture account for each conviction of the specified offenses. This leaves an unfunded balance of about $270,000. III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND AB 129 repealed language in Section 1463.14 of the Penal Code which would allow the court in the County to charge a separate$50 assessment fee upon each defendant convicted of a violation of specified provisions related to driving under the influence. AB 129 passed and was signed by the Governor and became effective January 1, 1996. See attachment In effect Section 1463.14 now brings Contra Costa County in line with other Counties in the State in that the assessment fee can be deposited in a special account which "shall be used exclusively to pay for the cost of performing for the county,or a city or special district within the county, analysis of blood, breath or urine for alcohol content or for the presence of drugs or for services related to that testing". IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION. Funds which are currently distributed to the State and cities would retained b e County to pay for the cost of testing by the Criminalistics Laboratory. The County w uld be in violation f the requirements of the change in the law. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT? X Yes SIGNATURE: L—n heriff-C Figoner RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON june 2b , 199b APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ---------- ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: JUn 25 , 1996 PHI THELOR,C RK Q VOARDF SORS AN OUNY OR B . cc: Sheriff-Coroner Municipal Court Administration Auditor-Controller . TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS D Contra Phil Batchelor, County Administrat �u . i,j ' ' FROM: FW I 0 W5_ Costa .!/"'fJ • County January 24, 1995 CONIRACDSTACDUWInu (c`a DATE: _ ADWIINISTRATION " SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 129 (Rainey) - REPEAL LANGUAGE PROVIDING FOR A SEPARATE $50 ASSESSMENT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BY THE COURT UPON EACH DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SPECIFIED PROVISIONS _ - RFT_ATF.T? _Til DnTVTma TTNnFR THF TNFT,TTF.NrF. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ACKNOWLEDGE that the Board of Supervisors is the SPONSOR of AB 129 by Assemblyman Richard Rainey, which, as introduced, would repeal language which provides for a separate $50 assessment in Contra Costa County by the Court upon each defendant convicted of a violation of specified provisions related to driving under the influence. BACKGROUND: In 1987, we were successful in obtaining language which allowed Contra Costa County to impose an additional penalty assessment. in order to replace the $50 per conviction of driving tinder the influence which is removed from the fine and forfeiture pot and dedicated to the Criminalistics Laboratory. At, that time, the County retained all of its share of the fines and forfeitures and thereby we were able to reimburse ourselves for the funds which were transferred to the Crime Lab. Since that time, the State has moved to take the .major share of our fine and forfeiture revenue, thereby rendering this special provision of little use to the County. All other counties are allowed to impose an additional penalty which is not shared with the State. We are seeking to eliminate the special, provision we had for ourselves so that we can now share in the provision which applies to all other counties. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE ­1k' _APPROVE ._OTHER /I�/� S IC N AT UR E4z �G4411J�� ACTION OF BOARD ON -,-1195 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED->-I/- OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS , I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE 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 DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED SAN 31 1995 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 3 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY— �,DEPUTY -2- Penal Code § 1463. 14 was first enacted in 1978 [SB 1127 - Presley, Chapter 790, Statutes of 1978) . Prior to this time, a person convicted of DUI could be punished with a fine of $250 or imprisonment, or both, and suspension of the individual's driver's license. This bill, which went into effect September 18, 1978, increased the fine to $275 and specified for the first time that $25 for each conviction was to be placed In a special account to reimburse the Department of Justice or local agencies for performing blood, breath, or urine analysis to test for alcohol. content. The bill contained a sunset date of July 1, 1.980. It Is important to also note that this $25 comes out of the overall. fine and forfeiture pot, based on the number of convictions, not the number of cases in which the defendant- pays the fine. Penal Code § 1463.14 was amended in 1979 [AB 1324 - Nolan, Chapter 849, Statutes of 1979) . This amendment simply moved the sunset date up one year to July 1, 1981. Penal Code § 1463. 14 was amended in 1980 [SB 1.429 - Presley, Chapter 276, Statutes of 1980) . This bill went into effect Immediately, although the amendments to § 1463. 14 became operative ,Iuly 1, 1980. This bill increased the $25 transfer to pay for the al.cohol testing to $35 and extended the provision for the fee until July 1, 1.982. Penal Code § 1463. 14 was amended twice in 1.982 [The first was SB 1.311 - Johnson, Chapter 331, Statutes of 1982) . This bill went into effect June 30, 1982. This bill increased the $35 transfer for drug or alcohol testing to $50 and eliminated the July 1., 1982 sunset date entirely. Penal Code s 1.463. 14 was amended twice in 1982 [The second was AB 3405 - Moorhuad, Chapter 1339, Statutes of 1.982) . This bill became effective September 24, 1982. This bill simply made a technical correction to the language in Chapter 331, Statutes of 1982, to clarify that the $50 transfer was to be for each conviction for the listed offenses. This language had inadvertently been deleted in enacting Chapter 331. Penal Code § 1463. 14 was amended In 1987 [AB 2519 - Campbell, Chapter 1158, Statutes of 1987) . This bill became effective January 1., 1988. It was sponsored by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors In an effort to restore to the overall fine and forfeiture pot the funds which were being transferred to the criminalisti.cs laboratory. This section added subdivision (b) to P.C. § 1463. 14 and provided that Contra Costa County could impose an additional $50 "assessment" on each defendant convicted of the designated alcohol. or drug offenses and this money would be deposited Into the overall. fine and forfeiture pot-. This had the advantage of being of benefit to both the County and the cities since the P.C. § 1463 pot was divided between the cities and County according to a formula specified in the statute. Penal- Code § 1463. 1.4 was amended in 1990 [Sn 2305 - Ayala, Chapter 1.303, Statutes of 19901 . This bill became effective January 1., 1991. This bill extended the provision we had added In .1.987 to all counties. However, a very significant difference was made In the Language used for the other counties - as it turned out: later. . The formula allowed pursuant to this bill for all other counties was to allow a "penalty" in an amount equal to the cost of testing but not to exceed $.100, minus the $50 transferred from`.,,the fine and forfeiture pot pursuant to subdivision (a) 'of this section. In most cases, that meant a $100 "penalty", minus the other $50 or a new "penalty" of $50, the same result as that imposed by Contra Costa County pursuant to subdivision (b) . The difference here is that the entire $100 in the other counties went to the criminalisti.cs laboratory to offset the cost of alcohol testing. In Contra Costa County, only the first $50 went to the criminallstics laboratory. The other $50 went to the general P.C. 9 1463 fine and forfeiture pot. Penal Code 5 1463.14 was repealed in 1991 [AB 1297 - Isenberg, Chapter 90, Statutes of 1991] . This section was repealed effective June 30, 1991 along with most of the other special spinoffs from the fine and forfeiture pot in the enactment of the Trial Court Realignment and Efficiency Act of 1991. Penal Code S 1463. 14 was added back later in 1991 [AB 544 - Chapter 189, Statutes of 1991] . This section was effective July 29, 1991. The section was restored in the form it had been at the time it was repealed a month earlier. The problem, however, Is that Chapter 90, Statutes of 1991 also'changed the split of the P.C. S 1463 fine and forfeiture pot and allowed the State to take 75% of the funds in this general pot from the counties and 508 of the money from the cities. No other county's criminalistics laboratory was affected by this provision insofar as P.C. 5 1463. 14 was concerned. Their entire costs, up to $100, were set aside for the criminalistics laboratory before the split with the State was made. however, Contra Costa County's exception for itself meant that we then lost 758 of the $50 additional "assessment" we had gained because this additional $50 went into the general fine and forfeiture pot., rather than into the special criminalistics laboratory fund. As a result, Contra Costa County's criminalistics laboratory is now disadvantaged because the State is getting 758 of the County's share of the additional $50 and 508 of the cities' share of the additional $50, only In this County. What we are seeking is to repeal the special language for Contra Costa County so that we can be treated again the same as all other counties are. Our alcohol testing program costs us about $330,000 a year. We recover about $160,000 a year from the first $50 which is taken out of the fine and forfeiture pot for each conviction of the specified offenses. Note that this is for each conviction and bears no relationship to whether the individual pays the fine which is imposed. This leaves us with a balance of about $170,000. We now recover only 258 of the County's share of the second $50 and then only when the defendant pays the fine. Enactment of the requested amendments will allow the County's criminalistics laboratory to receive the full $50 for each defendant who pays the fine which is imposed. The State will lose the 758 of the $50 for each case where the County would receive the funds. The State and cities would lose the $50 for those cases where the city and State now split the $50. Since the amount recovered is based on the amount actually paid by the defendant, it will be substantially below the $160,000 we receive from the first $50. The maximum loss to the State and cities if every defendant had the $50 imposed and each defendant actually paid the fine would be $160,000. The total actual loss is probably less than $100,000 because the County does receive some of these funds now and not all defendants have the additional $50 imposed nor do all of those who have it imposed actually end up paying it. In view of the fact that the Board of Supervisors included this provision in Its 1.995 Legislative Program, it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to now acknowledge that it is the sponsor of AB 1.29. cc: County Administrator Sheriff-Coroner Auditor-Controller Interim Municipal Court Administrator. Kathryn Holmes, Chief, Criminal.istics Laboratory Sheriff's Department George Roemer, Senior Deputy County Administrator Les Spahnn, Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn R3 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-I995-96 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 129 Introduced by Assembly Member Rainey January 12, 1995 An act to amend Section 1463.14 of the Penal Code,relating to drunk.driving assessments. j . ..:::::::.:.:•;;;,: tLEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 129, as introduced, Rainey. Driving under the influence: assessments: Contra Costa County. Existinglaw authorizes the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa 'County, to authorize by resolution the imposition of a $50 assessment by the court upon each defendant convicted of a violation of specified provisions related to driving under the influence. w This bill would repeal this provision. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. .The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 1463.14 of the Penal Code is 2 amended to read: 3 1463.14. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of 4 Section 1463, of the moneys deposited with the county 5 treasurer pursuant to Section 1463, fifty dollars ($50) for 6 each conviction of a violation of Section 23103, 23104, 7 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code shall be deposited in 8 a special account which shall be used exclusively to pay as _,...._s.._-- -- _._..__...._. . ►.a► POIC_S AB 129 — 2 — 1 for the cost of performing for the county, or a city or 2 special district within the county,analysis of blood,breath 3 or urine for alcohol content or for the presence of drugs, 4 or for services related to that testing. The sum shall not 5 exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services for 6 which the sum is intended. � 7 On November 1 of each year, the treasurer of each 8 county shall determine those moneys in the special 9 account which were not expended during the preceding 10 fiscal year, and shall transfer those moneys into the 11 general fund of the county. The county may retain an 12 amount of that money equal to its administrative cost 1.3 incurred pursuant to this section, and shall distribute the 14 remainder pursuant to Section 1463. 15 (b) T13-e Beard of Siipervisers ef.Ga Gestft Gounty 16 11if13; by resahitioft-, aiitharii-e the impesitien of ft fifty 1.7 dell�r-(�8O0 assessment by the eettrt open eftek 4efenda-nt 1.8 eanvieted of a viela�ian of Seetien 1334-52 er 3331 3 of the 19 Vehiele G&&le far depesit in the aeeaunt mem whieh the � 20 fift=y dally-f-(-$593- d-istril utien speeiRed in subdivisien{a) 21. is dedtteted-. 22 •(e)- The board of supervisors of a county other than 23 Gafit+f3 Costa Gau-ntw= may, by resolution, authorize an 24 additional penalty upon each defendant convicted of a 25 violation of Section 23152 or 231.53 of the Vehicle Code, of 26 an amount equal to the cost of testing for alcohol content, ' tilgstxs.�f1 ;3d a 27 less the fifty dollrs ($50) deposited as provided in 28 subdivision (a). The additional penalty authorized by this 29 subdivision shall be imposed only in those instances 30 where the defendant has the ability to pay,but in no case 31 shall the defendant be ordered to pay a penalty in excess 32 of fifty dollars ($50). The penalty authorized shall be 33 deposited directly with the county, or city or special 31 district within the county, which performed•the test, in _ 35 the special account described in subdivision (a),and shall 36 not be the basis for any additional assessment pursuant- to 37 Section 1464 or 1465, or Chapter 12 (commencing with 38 Section 76010) of Title 8 of the Government Code. 119 For purposes of this subdivision, "ability to pay" means 40 the overall capability of the defendant to pay the �a -3 — AI3 129 1 additional penalty authorized by this subdivision, taking 2 into consideration all of the following: 3 (A) Present financial obligations,. including family i 4 support obligations, and fines, penalties, and other ► 5 obligations to the court. 6 (B) 'Reasonably discernible future financial position ' 7 over the next 12 months. :. 8 (C) Any other factor or factors which may bear upon 9 the defendant's financial ability to pay the additional 10_ penalty. 11 -(* 12 (c) The Department of Justice*shall promulgate rules 13 and regulations to implement the provisions of this 14 section. O 99 I I