Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
|
|||||
|
CONTENTS: |
Mandatory
penalties for certain traffic offenses that result in serious physical harm
or death |
Note: The state fiscal
year is July 1 through June 30. For
example, FY 2008 is July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008.
·
Highway Safety Education Fund. If,
as assumed in this analysis, the bill's penalty provisions could affect up to
100 traffic offense-related cases annually statewide, and all of those
sanctioned offenders pay the mandatory fine amount, then the annual revenue
stream for the Highway Safety Education Fund could be up to between $2,500 and
$5,000, depending on the mix of circumstances involving serious physical harm
versus the death of another in any given year.
·
State Bureau of Motor Vehicles Fund. Presumably,
no more than one year after the imposition of a license suspension pursuant to
the bill's mandatory penalty increases, the sanctioned offenders would apply to
the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for the reinstatement of their driving privileges.
Although the timing of these license reinstatements is rather problematic to
predict, it seems reasonable to conclude that the number of offenders paying
the $30 license reinstatement fee would be around 100 or so per year. If true, then the additional revenue
generated annually for deposit in Fund 4W4 would be up to around $3,000 or so. It seems likely that the
bill's license suspension provisions would create little to no readily
discernible ongoing costs to the state, in particular the Bureau of Motor
Vehicles.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
|
Counties |
||||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain in fine
moneys of up to between $47,500 and $95,000 statewide |
Potential gain in fine moneys of up to between
$47,500 and $95,000 statewide |
Potential gain in fine moneys of up to between
$47,500 and $95,000 statewide |
|
|
Expenditures |
Little to no readily
discernible additional costs |
Little to no readily discernible additional
costs |
Little to no readily discernible additional
costs |
|
|
Municipalities |
||||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|
|
Expenditures |
Little to no readily
discernible additional costs |
Little to no readily
discernible additional costs |
Little to no readily discernible additional
costs |
|
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
Local fine revenues. For the
purposes of this analysis, LSC fiscal staff has estimated that perhaps up to 100 traffic
offense-related cases could be affected annually statewide, presumably
resulting in an equivalent number of convictions in which the bill's mandatory
fine amounts must be imposed by the court.
It is not clear, however, the frequency with which the court will impose
the maximum amount; nor is it clear how many of the convictions will involve
circumstances of serious physical harm versus the death of another or how many
offenders may be unwilling and/or financially unable to pay fines imposed by
the court. Those caveats aside, if one assumes: (1) up to 100 convictions per
year for circumstances involving serious physical harm or death of another, and
(2) the court imposes and collects the maximum mandatory fine in each of those
circumstances, then the amount of fine revenue that could be generated annually
for deposit in county treasuries statewide would be up to between $47,500 ($475
x 100 serious physical harm convictions) and $95,000 ($950 x 100 death of
another convictions) per year.
·
Local criminal justice system expenditures. Subsequent to its enactment, it appears that the bill would affect a
relatively small subset of traffic offense-related offense cases that are
currently handled by county and municipal criminal justice systems. If this were true, then the bill's penalty
increase provisions will likely generate little to no readily discernible
additional costs for local criminal justice systems to resolve certain traffic
offense cases that result in serious physical harm or the death of another.
|
|
Overview
For
the purposes of this fiscal analysis, the bill most notably:
·
Requires
the sentencing court to impose specified fines, license suspensions, and points
assessments for certain traffic offenses that result in serious physical harm
or the death of another.
·
Establishes
in the state treasury the Highway Safety Education Fund, consisting of portions
of the fines identified in the preceding dot point and specifies that the
Department of Public Safety is to use the money only to pay for educational
activities that relate to highway safety.
Penalty increases for certain traffic
offenses
The bill requires the sentencing court to impose increased penalties if
a person is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, a violation of failing to
maintain an assured clear distance or any of several variations of failure to
yield when the violation resulted in serious physical harm to, or the death of,
another person as follows:
·
If
the violation results in serious physical harm to a person, then in addition to
any other penalty imposed for the offense, the court is required to
impose: (1) a mandatory fine not to
exceed $500, (2) a mandatory suspension of the offender's driver's or
commercial driver's license or permit or nonresident operating privilege under
a Class 8 suspension, which is not to exceed six months, and (3) a mandatory
assessment of at least two points, with discretion to assess an increased
amount of points, up to a total of four, against the offender's license,
permit, or privilege.
·
If
the violation results in the death of another, then in addition to any other
penalty imposed for the offense, the court is required to impose: (1) a mandatory fine not to exceed $1,000,
(2) a mandatory suspension of the offender's driver's or commercial driver's
license or permit or nonresident operating privilege under a Class 7
suspension, which is not to exceed one year, and (3) a mandatory assessment of
at least two points, with discretion to assess an increased amount of points,
up to a total of six, against the offender's license, permit, or privilege.
Impact on caseloads
The increased penalties
provided by the bill will be in addition to whatever other penalties the
sentencing would impose in a particular case under current law and sentencing
practices. If an offender fails to
maintain an assured clear distance or fails to yield the right of way, and
serious physical harm or death to another occurs as a result of the offense, in
most cases that individual would face a more serious charge than the existing
minor misdemeanor "assured clear distance" or "failure to
yield" traffic offenses. It seems
more likely that such an offender would be charged with vehicular homicide,
vehicular manslaughter, or vehicular assault, depending on the circumstances
present.
Traffic offense conviction
data from the Department of Public Safety indicates that, in 2006, there were
more than 165,000 convictions statewide for minor misdemeanor traffic offenses
involving failure to maintain an assured clear distance, or some form of
failure to yield the right of way. Most
of these did not involve serious physical harm to, or the death of, another
person, which is suggested by the fact that the same data indicates that there
were between 350 and 400 convictions statewide involving the offenses of
vehicular assault, vehicular manslaughter, and vehicular homicide,
circumstances where serious physical harm or death of another person would have
resulted. Based on LSC fiscal staff's
research to date, it seems likely that some subset, but not all, of these
convictions for serious traffic-related offenses would also have involved the
bill's penalty increases for failure to maintain an assured clear distance or
failure to yield the right of way.
For the purposes of this
analysis, LSC fiscal staff has assumed that up to one-quarter, or 25%, of these
350 to 400 serious traffic-related offense convictions reported in 2006 also
involved failure to maintain an assured clear distance or failure to yield the
right of way. If true, and future
traffic offense convictions more or less mirror Public Safety's 2006 data,
then, subsequent to the bill's enactment, perhaps up to 100 traffic
offense-related cases could be affected annually statewide (400 serious
traffic-related offense convictions x 25%).
As of this writing, LSC fiscal staff does not have the data at hand to
render a more precise estimate of the number of traffic offense-related cases
that could potentially be affected per year.
Additionally, there is the
possibility that certain courts adjudicating such matters may determine that
the homicide or assault offenses and the traffic offenses as specified in the
bill would constitute allied offenses of similar import and only allow the penalty
for either the homicide or assault offense or the assured clear distance or
failure to yield offenses as specified in the bill to be imposed, but not
both. To the extent that courts make
such a ruling, even fewer cases than estimated herein would likely be affected
by the bill's penalty increases. It is
also not clear that all courts would so decide with respect to the similarity
of these offenses.
State fiscal effects
State revenues
Highway Safety Education
Fund (created by the bill). The bill
establishes in the state treasury the Highway Safety Education Fund, consisting of the
first $25 of the mandatory fine of not more than $500 for a violation that
resulted in serious physical harm to another and the first $50 of the mandatory
fine of not more than $1,000 for a violation that resulted in the death of
another. The bill requires the
Department of Public Safety to use the money in the fund only to pay for
educational activities that relate to highway safety.
If, as assumed in this
analysis, the bill's penalty provisions could affect up to 100 traffic
offense-related cases annually statewide, and all of those sanctioned offenders
pay the mandatory fine amount, then the annual revenue stream for the Highway
Safety Education Fund could be in the range of up to between $2,500 and $5,000,
depending on the mix of circumstances involving serious physical harm versus
the death of another in any given year.
State Bureau of Motor
Vehicles Fund (Fund 4W4). Relative to
license suspensions, the bill:
·
Adds
a new class of judicial suspensions, a Class 8 suspension, specifies that a
Class 8 suspension is to be for a definite period not to exceed six months, and
requires the sentencing court to impose a Class 8 suspension for certain
traffic offenses if the offense results in serious physical harm to another.
·
Increases
for certain traffic offenses, if the violation results in the death of another,
the license suspension that the sentencing court must impose to a Class 7
suspension, which exists under current law and is for a definite period not to
exceed one year.
Under current law, unchanged
by the bill, the fee to reinstate a license suspended under any of the
circumstances noted immediately above would be $30. The $30 fee is deposited in the state treasury to the credit of
the State Bureau of Motor Vehicles Fund (Fund 4W4).
If, as assumed in this
analysis, the bill will result in up to 100 offenders having their licenses
suspended that would not otherwise have been suspended under current law and
sentencing practices, then presumably no more than one year after the
imposition of such a suspension, the affected offenders would apply to the
Bureau of Motor Vehicles for the reinstatement of their driving
privileges. Although the timing of
these license reinstatements is rather problematic to predict, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the number of offenders paying the $30 license
reinstatement fee would be around 100 or so per year. If true, then the additional revenue generated annually for
deposit in Fund 4W4 would be up to around $3,000 or so.
State expenditures
It seems likely that the
bill's license suspension provisions would create little to no readily
discernible ongoing costs to the state, in particular the Bureau of Motor
Vehicles.
Local fiscal effects
Local
fine revenues
The
bill requires in certain traffic offense cases the court impose a mandatory fine of not more
than $500 for a violation that resulted in serious physical harm to another and
a mandatory fine of not more than $1,000 for a violation that resulted in the
death of another. Of those fine
amounts, the first $25 of the former mandatory fine amount ($500) and the first
$50 of the latter mandatory fine amount ($1,000) are forwarded to the state
treasury. The remaining portions of
these fine amounts—which could be as much as $475 and $950, respectively—would
presumably be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the trial court
is located. This would appear to be the
case because the general fine distribution rules applicable in Ohio's criminal
actions or proceedings require that, absent exceptions and special crediting
provisions, fines collected for violations of the Revised Code generally must
be paid into the treasury of the county in which the trial court is located. As of this writing, LSC fiscal staff has not
identified any such exceptions or special crediting provisions relative to the
handling of the mandatory fine amounts that the bill requires the court to
impose. Thus, the general fine
distribution rules would apply to the portions of the mandatory fine amounts
that are not forwarded to the state treasury.
As previously noted, LSC
fiscal staff has estimated that perhaps up to 100 traffic offense-related cases
could be affected annually statewide, presumably resulting in an equivalent
number of convictions in which the bill's mandatory fine amounts must be
imposed by the court. The fines, as
specified by the bill, are of an amount not to be exceeded. It is not clear, however, the frequency with
which the court will impose the maximum amount; nor is it clear how many of the
convictions will involve circumstances of serious physical harm versus the
death of another or how many offenders may be unwilling and/or financially
unable to pay fines imposed by the court.
Those caveats aside, if one assumes:
(1) up to 100 convictions per year for circumstances involving serious
physical harm or death of another, and (2) the court imposes and collects the
maximum mandatory fine in each of those circumstances, then the amount of fine
revenue that could be generated annually for deposit in county treasuries
statewide would be in the range of up to between $47,500 ($475 x 100 serious
physical harm convictions) and $95,000 ($950 x 100 death of another
convictions) per year.
Local criminal justice
system expenditures
Subsequent to its enactment,
it appears that the bill would affect a relatively small subset of traffic
offense-related offense cases that are currently handled by county and
municipal criminal justice systems, but should not create additional or new
traffic offense-related cases requiring resolution by either of those local
criminal justice systems. If this were
true, then the bill's penalty increase provisions will likely generate little
to no readily discernible additional costs for local criminal justice systems
to resolve certain traffic offense cases that result in serious physical harm
or the death of another.
LSC fiscal staff: Joseph Rogers, Senior Budget Analyst