BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 29
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   July 6, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    SB 29 (Simitian) - As Amended:  May 11, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                              
          TransportationVote:14-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill imposes additional requirements on the use of 
          automated traffic enforcement systems.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Unknown, potentially significant reduction in fine and penalty 
            revenues, possibly 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.

          2)Partly offsetting reduction in court costs resulting from 
            fewer contested citations.

          3)Minor costs to Judicial Council to approve forms and to 
            compile and maintain reports from operators of automated 
            traffic enforcement systems.

           SUMMARY (continued)

           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.

          2)Requires that, by no later than January 1, 2013, such a system 
            be identified by signs posted within 200 feet of an 
            intersection where a system is operating, visible from 








                                                                  SB 29
                                                                  Page  2

            directions where the automated system is being utilized. 
            Currently, these systems must be identified by signs posted at 
            each intersection (visible to traffic going in all directions) 
            or posted at 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 a notice to appear to include specified information, 
            including the method by which an alleged violator may view and 
            discuss with the issuing agency evidence of the violation.

          5)Requires a government agency, when it contacts a registered 
            vehicle owner for the purpose of ascertaining the correct 
            identity of an alleged traffic violator, to 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.

          6)Requires a courtesy notice of an alleged violation, as of 
            January 1, 2013, to be on a form approved by Judicial Council 
            and to include specified information. 

          7)Requires a manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated 
            traffic enforcement system to submit an annual report to 
            Judicial Council that includes- to the extent this information 
            is readily available to the manufacturer or 
            supplier-information on (a) the number of alleged violations, 
            (b) the number of citations issued by type of violation, (c) 
            the number and percentage of citations dismissed by court, and 
            (d) traffic collisions at each intersection occurring before 
            and after the installation of the system. 

           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 operation of these systems.
           
          2)Background  . Automated enforcement systems have been authorized 
            for use by local governments since 1998. Current law 








                                                                  SB 29
                                                                  Page  3

            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. 

           3)Related Legislation.  This bill is substantially the same as SB 
            1362 (Simitian, 2010), which was held by this committee.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081