This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0106 - Authorizes automated traffic enforcement programs
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO. 523-01
BILL NO. SB 106
SUBJECT: Automated Photo-Traffic Enforcement Program
TYPE: Original
DATE: February 5, 1999
FISCAL SUMMARY
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| State Schools Money Fund | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All State Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| Local School Districts | $0 to Unknown | $0 to Unknown | $0 to Unknown |
| Municipal Court Systems | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total Estimated Net Effect on Local Funds | $0 to Unknown | $0 to Unknown | $0 to Unknown |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
This fiscal note contains 5 pages.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
The State Public Defender , Missouri Highway Patrol, City of Kansas City, Attorney General's Office, Department of Revenue, Missouri Sheriffs Association and the Missouri Police Chiefs Association do not expect to be fiscally impacted.
Based on a response to a similar proposal from the 1998 legislative session, the following agencies do not expect to be fiscally impacted: Greene County Court Clerk, Department of Transportation, Office of Prosecution Services and the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney.
The Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assumes that to the extent that an automated system would increase the number of speeders apprehended, there would be an increase in the workload of the courts in counties where an automated system is installed. However, the CTS does not expect the costs to exceed $100,000 in any given year.
St. Louis City would anticipate a minimal fiscal impact, but there could be a deterrent effect on speeders. St. Louis City has explored this option in the past with a company that was willing to accept a percentage of the fines as payment for use of the equipment. Since St. Louis City has a municipal court system, it was assumed that the City could make such an arrangement for payment because the fine money would be retained by the city. Additionally, the City did not anticipate a significant increase in the number of tickets issued because of the requirement that the location of the system be announced. It was assumed that motorists would reduce their speed in the vicinity.
Jackson County indicated a minimal fiscal impact. Since the language of the proposal is permissive, Jackson County officials were doubtful that such a system would even be implemented in the area. If Jackson County chooses to implement such a system there would be unknown costs.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
The Cities of Warren, Mexico and Springfield assumes that since the language is permissive the cities would incur no costs unless each city opts to implement such a program.
Oversight assumes that given the permissive language of the proposal that any city or county could, by ordinance, establish such a program. Income has been shown to the municipal court systems as well as to the State Schools Money Fund because municipal systems retain fines if the offense is not a state offense and certain cities with municipal systems retain revenue generated from fines. Income from court costs in addition to the fines has been shown to the municipal court systems to offset the costs of additional filings and trials, resulting in a net fiscal impact of zero to the municipal court systems. However, local school districts would still receive income disbursed from the State Schools Money Fund which would be fine money received from circuit or associate circuit court cases.
| FISCAL IMPACT - State Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| STATE SCHOOLS MONEY FUND | |||
| Income | |||
| Fines from Photo-Based | $0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| Traffic Monitoring | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| Costs | |||
| Disbursement to Local | $0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| School Districts | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON |
|||
| STATE SCHOOLS MONEY FUND | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (10 Mo.) | |||
| LOCAL | |||
| Income-Local School Districts | |||
| Fines from Photo-Based | $0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| Traffic Monitoring | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 |
| (continued) | (10 Mo.) | ||
| Income-Municipal Court Systems | |||
| Fines from Photo-Based | $0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| Traffic Monitoring | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| Income-Municipal Court Systems | |||
| Court Costs | $0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |
| Costs-Municipal Court Systems | |||
| Additional filings/trials | $0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | |
| Costs | |||
| Automated Photo-Traffic Equipment | $0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| (Unknown) | (Unknown) | (Unknown) | |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON |
$0 to | $0 to | $0 to |
| LOCAL FUNDS | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business | |||
| This proposal would not have a direct fiscal impact on small businesses. | |||
DESCRIPTION
The proposal would allow any city or county, by ordinance, to establish an automated photo-traffic enforcement program. Any city or county would be allowed to enter into agreements with private vendors to perform operational and administrative tasks associated with the use of the systems including, entering into an agreement with the Department of Revenue (DOR) to obtain relevant records regarding the owner and to prepare and mail summonses on behalf of the governmental entity.
The photo and proof of identity of the owner would be considered sufficient evidence that the
owner was responsible for the violation. Any owner issued a summons would be liable for fine and court costs unless evidence can be provided to the contrary. An affidavit would be required DESCRIPTION (continued)
for this purpose, would be admissible in a court proceeding, and would raise a rebuttable
presumption that the person in the affidavit was in actual control of the vehicle. At this point, the court could dismiss the summons and issue another summons for the other person. If the vehicle is alleged stolen, then a police report would be required as proof.
No points would be assessed for violations obtained through the use of an automated photo-traffic enforcement system. Photographic records provided to governmental or law enforcement agencies would be considered confidential. Summons issued pursuant to this proposal would be sent by first class mail within 21 days of the violation with instructions on how to dispose of the violation through a court appearance or payment of fine and costs.
Evidence obtained by this method could be admissible in any action of law brought as a result of personal injury, death or damage to property in the same method prescribed or otherwise required by law.
Public announcements would be required as well as signs indicating the system's presence.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program, would not require additional capital improvements or rental space and would not impact total state revenue.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Revenue
Department of Transportation
St. Louis City
St. Louis County
Jackson County
Greene County Circuit Court
Greene County Prosecuting Attorney
Department of Public Safety
Missouri Highway Patrol
Office of State Courts Administrator
State Public Defender
Office of Prosecution Services
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
February 5, 1999