BILL ANALYSIS SB 1362 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 1362 (Simitian) - As Amended: August 2, 2010 Policy Committee: TransportationVote:11-1 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill imposes additional requirements on the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. Specifically, the bill: 1)Prohibits a governmental agency that proposes to operate an automated traffic enforcement system from considering revenue generation beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when considering whether to install such as system within its jurisdiction. 2)Requires that, by no later than January 1, 2012, the systems be identified by signs posted within 200 feet of an intersection where a system is operating, visible from directions where the automated system is being utilized. Currently, the systems can be identified by signs posted at each intersection (visible to traffic going in all directions) or on signs posted all major entrances to the city. 3)Requires that, prior to installing a system after January 1, 2012, the government agency adopt a finding of fact establishing that the system is needed at a specific location for reasons related to safety. 4)Requires that when a government agency contacts a registered vehicle owner for the purpose of ascertaining the correct identity of an alleged traffic violator, it make the owner aware that he or she is not required to provide the information, and that failure to provide the information will not result in additional responsibility or liability associated with the alleged violation. SB 1362 Page 2 5)Requires a manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated traffic enforcement system to submit annual reports to the Judicial Council that include - to the extent this information is readily available to the manufacturer or supplier - information on the number of (a) alleged violations, (b) citations issued by type of violation, (c) citations paid in full, and (d) traffic collisions at each intersection occurring before and after the installation of the system. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Unknown, potentially significant reduction in fine and penalty revenues, potentially in the range of several million dollars annually, (state and local special funds), to the extent that the bill reduces use of automated traffic enforcement systems in the future. 2)Partly offsetting reduction in court costs resulting from fewer contested citations. 3)Minor costs to Judicial Council to compile and maintain reports from operators of automated traffic enforcement systems. COMMENTS 1)Rationale . According to the author, the bill is intended to ensure that automated traffic enforcement systems are operated for safety, not revenue, and that due process is afforded for citations issued as a result of these systems 2)Background . Automated enforcement systems have been authorized for use by local governments since 1998. Current law authorizes use of these systems subject to various requirements relating to posting of signs to notify motorists of the presence of the system, adherence to traffic signal timing and intervals standards, and confidentiality of data collected by the system. Current law also prohibits a contract between a government agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement equipment from including provisions for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment. SB 1362 Page 3 1)Fiscal issue . The governor's budget proposal assumes $400 million from expanded usage of systems for speeding enforcement. It is based on voluntary participation by local governments. This bill's provision prohibiting a local jurisdiction from considering revenue impacts of new enforcement systems may be in conflict with this and related budget proposals. Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081