The 2010-11 Budget: Automated Speed Enforcement Merits Authorization

POLICY BRIEF The 2010-11 Budget: Automated Speed Enforcement Merits Authorization MAC TAylor • l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T • JAnuAry 27, 2010 As part of the January 2010 special up to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less would re‑ session related to the state’s budget ceive a $225 fine, while those who exceeded the shortfall, the administration pro‑ speed limit by more than 15 mph would receive poses a new strategy to generate additional state a $325 fine. The administration estimates that revenues that would be used for the support of these changes would result in additional revenue the trial courts from penalties imposed on driv‑ of $398 million in 2010‑11 and $477 million ers who are caught speeding through the use of upon full implementation in future years. automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems. In Split of Revenues Would Change. Existing this brief, we (1) outline how ASE systems would state law allocates revenue collected from most work, (2) assess the administration’s estimate of traffic violations among a myriad of special fund new state revenues from this approach, (3) com‑ accounts at both the state and local level based ment on its merit, and (4) offer some strategies for on a variety of factors, including where the viola‑ improving upon this proposed budget solution. tion occurred and which law enforcement agency issued the citation. Under the Governor’s pro‑ Governor’s Budget Proposal posal, however, the revenue collected from fines New and Different Penalties. Currently, state issued using an ASE system would not be subject law authorizes cities and counties to use auto‑ to the current allocation process. Instead, 85 per‑ mated enforcement systems to identify drivers cent of the revenue ($338 million in 2010‑11) who enter a local intersection when the traffic would be transferred to the state and then de‑ signal light is red. The Governor’s special session posited in the Trial Court Trust Fund, which is budget package proposes statutory changes to used to support the operations of trial courts. The (1) authorize local governments to also use auto‑ remaining 15 percent of revenues ($60 million in mated enforcement systems to identify individu‑ 2010‑11) would be allocated to the city or county als driving greater than the posted speed limit in which the violation occurred. and (2) establish new and different penalties for How State Revenues Would Be Spent. For drivers caught speeding by such systems. Specifi‑ 2010‑11, the budget proposal assumes that the cally, drivers who exceeded the speed limit by state’s $338 million share in additional revenues An lAo reporT would be deposited in the Trial Court Trust Fund. ASE system. The vendor would then review the Of this amount, the budget allocates $41 million information based on criteria established in an for increased court security costs and $297 mil‑ agreement with the local government operat‑ lion to fully offset a proposed General Fund ing the system. For example, a vendor could be reduction to the trial courts. In addition, the directed to ignore violations that are below a proposed budget bill includes language specify‑ certain threshold above the posted speed limit ing that the Director of Finance could increase (for example, driving less than 5 mph faster than the amount available for expenditure from the allowed). Following this review process, the ven‑ Trial Court Trust Fund by up to $297 million to dor would transmit to the local jurisdiction all al‑ make up for a shortfall in the projected ASE fine leged violations that meet these criteria for them revenue. Because the Trial Court Trust Fund is to determine whether to issue a citation. Under heavily supported from the General Fund, this the Governor’s proposal, and similar to the would in all likelihood increase General Fund existing systems for red light enforcement, only expenditures in the budget year if there was a designated peace officers in the local jurisdiction shortfall in ASE revenues. would be authorized to issue the citation. How Would the Proposed How Much Revenue Could Actually ASE Systems Work? Be Generated? According to the administration, the ASE While the Governor’s proposal estimates that systems would operate similarly to the exist‑ ASE systems will generate a total of $398 mil‑ ing automated red light enforcement systems. lion in additional fine revenue in 2010‑11, our For example, when a driver speeds through an analysis indicates that the actual level of revenue intersection, automated cameras would take a would depend heavily on a variety of factors, as photograph of the driver, as well as the license discussed below. plate of the vehicle. The administration indicates Participation of Local Governments. The that many of the roughly 600 automated red light primary factor that would impact the amount of enforcement systems that currently exist through‑ revenue generated is the extent to which cities out the state could be modified to also identify and counties chose to implement an ASE system individuals speeding through intersections—re‑ within their jurisdiction—whether it be by modi‑ gardless of whether the traffic signal light was red. fying an existing automated red light enforcement This is because most of existing systems currently system to include ASE capabilities or by install‑ have the capability to track a vehicle’s speed. ing a new system where none now exists. The As is the case with the existing automated administration’s revenue estimate assumes that at red light enforcement systems, a photograph least 500 of the roughly 600 existing automated capturing the alleged violations, as well as any red light enforcement systems in the state will pertinent data (such as the speed of the ve‑ be converted in the budget year to also capture hicle), would generally be transmitted to the speeding violations. However, the willingness of private vendor that installed and monitors the local governments to implement an ASE system will in large part depend on whether they are 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An lAo reporT convinced that there is a public safety benefit, as According to the administration, local gov‑ well as a fiscal incentive, to do so. ernments would generally not have to pay the Our review of the available research indi‑ upfront costs to install the equipment necessary cates that ASE systems used in other localities to implement an ASE system. It assumes these have generally led to varying levels of reduction costs would ordinarily be borne by vendors. in traffic violations and accidents. For example, However, local governments would incur other an ASE system implemented in the United costs. For example, there would be increased Kingdom appeared to cause about a 45 percent workload to review and authorize ASE citations. decline in injury crashes, while a similar system In addition, they would have to pay a vendor to implemented in Norway appeared to reduce monitor the system on an ongoing basis. Based injury crashes by 20 percent. In addition, a study on cost data from the 2002 audit by BSA on found a 40 percent reduction in accidents after automated red light enforcement systems, our an ASE system was implemented in Paradise analysis indicates that some local governments Valley, Arizona. Similarly, in 2002, the Bureau of might not receive sufficient fine revenues under State Audits (BSA) found an overall 10 percent the Governor’s proposal to fully cover all of the decline in accidents caused by individuals driv‑ costs to operate and maintain ASE systems. Thus, ing past red traffic signal lights in local jurisdic‑ there could be little fiscal incentive for them to tions in California that use automated enforce‑ establish such systems in their jurisdiction. ment systems. Number of Violations Issued. The number of Although the evidence suggests that ASE violations issued by local law enforcement agen‑ systems would likely improve traffic safety, some cies in localities that chose to implement an ASE local governments may not be interested in would also greatly affect the amount of revenue utilizing such systems from a fiscal standpoint. generated under the Governor’s proposal. Based As mentioned above, the Governor’s proposal on data collected on ASE systems used in other would allocate 15 percent of the ASE fine rev‑ states, the administration assumes that four‑times enues to the city or county where the violation more ASE violations will be issued than red occurred. For example, under the Governor’s light violations. According to the administration, proposal, a city would receive about $49 (or each automated red light enforcement system 15 percent) of the $325 fine collected from each in California generally issues around 100 viola‑ individual driving more than 15 mph above the tions each month. As a result, the administration posted speed limit. In comparison, a city may estimates that on average each of the assumed receive about $87 (or about 20 percent) of the 500 ASE systems would issue 400 speeding $446 fine collected from each individual cited violations each month, or about 2.4 million per by a police officer (without the use of ASE) for year. Moreover, the administration assumes that speeding by more than 25 mph. Moreover, a city 60 percent of all ASE violations issued would be may receive around $155 (or about 35 percent) for a fine of $225 (speeding by up to 15 mph), of the $446 fine issued for driving through a red with the remaining 40 percent at $325 (speeding signal light, including those monitored with an by more than 15 mph). automated enforcement system. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 An lAo reporT Collection of Fines. Regardless of how many that it is unlikely that the ASE proposal would ASE violations are issued, trial courts must be generate the full $398 million assumed in the able to collect the necessary fines from the cited proposed budget for 2010‑11. offenders. The administration’s revenue esti‑ Governor’s Proposal Has Merit, but mate assumes that about 75 percent of the fines Also Some Shortcomings imposed will be successfully collected. However, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is Given that the Legislature has already autho‑ unable at this time to provide adequate informa‑ rized cities and counties to use automated red tion on what percentage of existing fines that are light enforcement systems, we believe that the issued are actually collected by the courts. Thus, Governor’s special session proposal would pro‑ it is possible that trial courts will not be able vide local governments with an additional option to collect ASE fines at the rate assumed by the to further improve traffic safety while potentially administration. Moreover, whenever a new fine providing a fiscal benefit to the state and local or penalty has been established in the past—or governments. Thus, we find that it merits legisla‑ when an existing fine or penalty is increased— tive consideration. However, we have identified there are often errors and problems in the collec‑ two shortcomings with the Governor’s special tion of fees at the local level. session proposal that we discuss below. The administration’s estimate of revenues ASE Fines Differ From Existing Speeding from implementation of ASE are conservative in Violation Fines. Under the Governor’s proposal, a number of respects. (For example, the estimate drivers caught for speeding by an ASE system assumes that ASE systems would only be imple‑ would, depending upon their speed, pay either mented at intersections that are currently moni‑ a greater or a lesser fine than if caught for the tored with automated red light enforcement sys‑ same violation by a county sheriff or city policy tems.) However, we believe some key assump‑ officer. Figure 1 summarizes the different fine tions may be somewhat optimistic. One example amounts based on the vehicle’s speed relative to is the assumption that over 80 percent of the the posted speed limit. As indicated in the figure, existing automated red light enforcement systems a driver cited for speeding by more than 15 mph in the state will be modi‑ fied and fully operational Figure 1 in six months to include Governor’s Proposed ASE Fines Differ From Existing ASE capabilities. This ap‑ Speeding Fines pears unlikely, especially Speeding Offense Total Finea given the administra‑ tion’s proposed division Proposed ASE System Exceeding speed limit by up to 15 mph $225 of revenue between the Exceeding speed limit by more than 15 miles mph 325 state and local govern‑ Existing Enforcement Conditions ments, an approach that Exceeding speed limit by up to 15 mph $212 may provide inadequate Exceeding speed limit by 16 to 25 mph 332 Exceeding speed limit by more than 25 mph 446 incentive to localities to a Actual amounts of existing speeding fines can vary based on several factors, such as the violation history further this approach. of the driver. Accordingly, we believe ASE = automated speed enforcement; MPH = miles per hour. 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An lAo reporT through an ASE system would be fined $325. In to utilize such systems on a voluntary basis. contrast, a driver cited by an officer for exceed‑ However, to address the shortcomings we have ing the speed limit by 16 to 25 mph is generally identified above, we recommend modifying the fined $332 and $446 for speeding by more than proposal in three ways. In addition, we suggest 25 mph. On the other hand, someone exceeding that the Legislature may want to change how the the speed limit by less than 15 mph would pay additional penalty revenues would be allocated $225 under ASE but $212 otherwise for the same between the state and local governments, in offense. We find no policy rationale for structur‑ order to provide a sufficient fiscal incentive for ing the penalties differently and levying a differ‑ local governments to participate in the program. ent fine amount for essentially the same speeding Establish Fines Identical to Existing Speed- behavior. ing Fines. We recommend that the Legislature Directing Revenue to Courts Limits Bud- modify the Governor’s proposal so that the geting Flexibility. The Governor’s proposal to total amount paid for exceeding the speed limit devote the state’s share of the new revenues when caught by an ASE system matches the total entirely to support trial courts is problematic. amount a driver currently pays under existing The administration has not provided a compel‑ state law when caught by a sheriff or police ling policy rationale for linking these penalty officer. We note that, because the Governor’s revenues to trial court operations, such as court proposed ASE fines differ from existing speed‑ security. Notably, a court security fee paid by ing fines, our recommendation could result in a criminal offenders already exists to support the modest net reduction in the estimated revenue costs of providing security in the courts. In ad‑ assumed in the Governor’s budget. dition, we have not received sufficient informa‑ Deposit New Revenues in the General Fund. tion at this time from AOC to justify the need for The Governor’s proposal to not subject the ASE additional funding for court security. Finally, we fine revenue to the very complex process cur‑ find that the Governor’s proposed restrictions rently used to distribute other penalty and fine on the uses of the revenue would significantly revenues is a step in the right direction. It helps limit the Legislature’s flexibility in meeting its to move the state toward a more simplified and budget priorities each year. The Legislature has less restrictive process for both the state and lo‑ the option of depositing the proceeds from this cal governments. new revenue source into the state General Fund, However, we find that the Governor’s pro‑ where it could be budgeted to support whatever posal could be improved by providing even state programs it deemed to be most worthwhile. greater flexibility to the Legislature to prioritize the use of the state’s share of these revenues on LAO Recommendations an annual basis. Specifically, we recommend that Our assessment is that ASE systems could the Legislature modify the Governor’s proposal result in increased traffic safety (which has to deposit the proceeds in the General Fund potential state and local fiscal benefits, such rather than the Trial Court Trust Fund. This would as from reduced health care costs) as well as a ensure that the Legislature has full flexibility to significant potential direct fiscal benefit. Accord‑ budget these funds for its statewide priorities. ingly, we recommend the Legislature approve the Depending on the Legislature’s assessment of the Governor’s proposal to allow local governments state’s needs in any given year, this could include www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 An lAo reporT trial court operations or other programs. In addi‑ tion occurred. We recommend that the Legis‑ tion, the Legislature may wish to consider initiating lature revise the proposed legislation to instead efforts to restructure the existing overly complex require that the local share of the revenue be fine and penalty revenue distribution system. allocated to the local government that operates Increase Oversight of Fine Collections and the ASE system, as this might not always be the Allocations. As noted above, there are often same entity that is responsible for the jurisdiction errors in the collection and distribution of the where the violation occurred. For example, the fine revenues. In order to ensure that any rev‑ existing automated red light enforcement systems enue generated by ASE systems is appropriately in the City of Sacramento are operated on its be‑ collected and remitted to the state, the Joint half by the County of Sacramento. Our proposed Legislative Audit Committee may wish to request change would ensure that the local government that BSA carry out an audit of the collection and incurring the expenses of the system receives the distribution of the new revenue. revenue. Consider Changing the Split of Revenues. Modify Amount of Projected ASE Fine As discussed above, it is important that local Revenue. As previously mentioned, the adminis‑ governments have a fiscal incentive—or at least tration’s projections on how much revenue will no fiscal disincentive—to implement ASE sys‑ be generated from the utilization of ASE systems tems in their jurisdiction. As we noted earlier, in the state appears overly optimistic, particularly it is possible that 15 percent of the total fine given the likelihood that the 15 percent share revenue collected may not be sufficient for cities provided to localities is too small an incentive and counties to cover the costs to operate the to move this strategy forward. Consequently, system and pay a vendor to maintain and moni‑ the actual level of revenue generated under the tor it on an ongoing basis. As a result, the Legis‑ Governor’s proposal could be far less than the lature could consider increasing the share of the $398 million assumed in the budget for 2010‑11. revenue that would be directed to local govern‑ If the Legislature were to increase the share to ments. For example, based on cost data from the local governments to 25 percent, as we sug‑ 2002 BSA audit on automated red light enforce‑ gested in our earlier example, we estimate that ment systems in the state, the Legislature may the ASE systems proposal would generate around want to increase the local share to 25 percent of $200 million in total revenues in 2010‑11 with total ASE fine revenue. Such a change might not about $150 million allocated to the state. (This only encourage localities to convert automated amount would increase in future years.) Our red light enforcement systems to include ASE; it estimate assumes that about half of the exist‑ might also convince them to add both capabili‑ ing automated red light enforcement systems ties to intersections without any such systems, would be modified in the budget year to include potentially resulting in additional revenue gains ASE capabilities. More importantly, it assumes to the state and to local government agencies. that the Legislature acts quickly—as we would In addition, we note that the administration’s recommend—to approve the authorization of proposed budget trailer legislation to authorize ASE systems across the state, in order to provide the use of ASE systems specifies that the local sufficient time for cities and counties to plan and government share of the fine revenue would be implement such systems in their jurisdictions. allocated to the city or county in which the viola‑ 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An lAo reporT These recommendations should all be considered preliminary. We are still receiving additional information on the costs to cities and counties to operate ASE systems that may prompt us to modify our revenue estimate and recom‑ mendations. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 An lAo reporT LAO Publications This report was prepared by Drew soderborg, and reviewed by Anthony simbol. The legislative Analyst’s office (lAo) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the lAo’s internet site at www.lao.ca.gov. The lAo is located at 925 l street, suite 1000, sacramento, CA 95814. 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov