In Los Angeles Superior Court, $2.8 million in fines had been collected and more than 28,000 driver’s licenses restored by the middle of December, according to a new KPCC report. The law passed in September after advocates for the downtrodden urged the Legislature to lessen the effect of some of the nation’s heaviest traffic violation fines.

Three measures, passed last session, provide relief to motorists in trouble:

• Senate Bill 85 requires counties to implement an amnesty program. Amnesty runs through March 31, 2017.
• Assembly Bill 1151 provides a way for drivers facing parking ticket fines to pay by installments.
• Senate Bill 405 allows drivers to contest fines before paying the fine by a set deadline and gives those in arrears more time to make good. The previous law made it difficult for drivers to contest tickets and added penalties for prolonged pay periods. Traffic tickets for $35 violations were turning into $200-plus fines once a state fee, a court cost fee and a county assessment were tacked on.

Now, though, the state and municipalities will have to deal with a loss of revenue.

Following the Money

The money ends up funding any number of government projects and enterprises, depending on the location, the issuing agency and the type of violation.

Source: Los Angeles Superior Court

The state attaches 20 percent onto any traffic ticket, of which 70 percent is distributed to a number of operations. Leading that is a restitution fund (32 percent) followed by driver training assessment (25 percent) — which pays for driver training in schools — and police training (24 percent). Eight percent also goes to the corrections training fund, which exists “for the development of appropriate standards, training and program evaluation.”

“California is unique in that traffic fees go to so many different funds as a revenue source,” said John Bowman, vice president of the National Motorists Association. “You just don’t see it to that degree in other states.”

Diverting portions of the revenue to things like officer training, he said, makes no sense.

“It seems logical that the proceeds of the fine should be tied to the nature of that fine.”

In some cases, cities and counties battle for the revenue. The city of San Jose in 2011 complained in a report that the $4 million it had been receiving for 50,000 violations has been tapped by outside government sources.

“Most revenue from traffic citations benefits the state of California and the county, not the city,” the report stated.

Legislative analysts found that amnesty would have no effect on local or state coffers.

But that seems unlikely, unless SB405 was simply a feel-good measure to make motorists feel like their representatives were offering them some relief.

“This sounds like a gesture,” said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “If a person feels they have a good chance to win in court, why wouldn’t they in the first place?”

But language in SB85 does give more money to state funds supported by traffic fines and fees:

The bill would, following the transfer to the Judicial Council of the first $250,000 received, increase the percentage of specified penalties to be deposited in the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and the Corrections Training Fund, which are continuously appropriated funds.

Source: National Motorists Association

California, with 13 million registered vehicles on the road, ranks second to Texas in the number of speed traps over the last five years, according to a recent study by the National Motorists Association.

The state also ranks in the top 10 based on speed traps per 1,000 of lane miles.

The crowd-sourced speedtrap.org website has tracked trouble areas and warned drivers since 1999.  Los Angeles tops the list of speed traps in the state with 57, with San Diego second with 48.  San Jose, Riverside and Fresno round out the top five.

For more information about how to qualify for the program, organized by county, see http://www.courts.ca.gov/trafficamnesty.htm

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com

The stakes for builders are high; failure to pass the measure could result in a doubling of local fees placed on developers building new homes in order to help pay for school improvements.

The lead role in securing the 365,880 signatures to qualify the bond initiative was led by a politically-savvy trio – Californians for Quality Schools, Coalition for Adequate School Housing and the California Building Industry Association.

The latter two support the quality schools group, and are led by boards composed of developers, school officials, architects and financial advisors.

“This bond will go a long way to ensure school districts have the necessary resources to create the best learning environments for students,” said Eileen Reynolds, who chairs the board of the California Building Industry Association and works as government affairs director for Tejon Ranch Corp., one of the largest private land holders in the state.

The group has history on its side; California voters last year passed 128 of 157 local school bond measures, or 82 percent, approving $14 billion in spending.

Voters statewide last passed a bond measure for schools in 2006 – worth $20 billion – with 57 percent of the vote. The money from that bond is now gone, with $2 billion of improvements queued up in need of funding.

Local vs. Statewide Bonds

Proponents of the spending face opposition from Gov. Jerry Brown, who set the table for the bond imitative when he permitted little outlay in his budget this year for school improvements.

Brown said he felt that local bond elections better served the people.

“I think the locals can do it more efficiently,” Brown said earlier this year.

In many of the districts that passed bond measures last year, enrollment has dropped but voters continue to fund local measures.

Voters in the Alameda Unified School District last year approved $179 million in bonds with 62 percent of the vote. Enrollment is 9,502, which is 4 percent lower than seven years ago.

Voters in Anaheim Union High School District last year signed off on $249 million in bonds for, among other things, “construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of school facilities.” Enrollment there has dropped 4 percent since 2010.

Teacher and administrator levels have remained steady since 2010, according to figures from the state’s department of education.

Brown’s formidable political heft already has halted one effort, a $4.3 billion school bond that passed the statehouse last session but stopped at his desk. It was this move that prompted the new measure, which proponents spent $2 million getting on the ballot.

Motivation for Developers

Those proponents stand to benefit if that $9 billion in school spending is passed.

Bonds rely on property taxes on homes in an affected area, which makes it easier for developers to get the go-ahead to build.

One of the most important elements in a selling disclosure for schools is the amount of taxable property in the district.

But those developers are also in a continual battle with municipalities that are charging some of the highest developer fees in the U.S. that have led to the highest housing costs in the nation.

It puts developers in a dicey public position – yes, there is some self-serving interest but at the same time, there is a legitimate need for statewide outlay on schools and a need to be an integral part of the discussion on how to fund that outlay.

“Obviously modern schools are an important marketing item when selling homes and people want homes in good school districts and that includes the facilities,” said Dave Cogdill, a former Republican lawmaker who leads the California Building Industry Association.

He also points out that developers, large and small, are hit up for money continually, from errant legislation that would require more and more “green” fees to affordable housing mandates.

“We are expected to deal with global warming and the cost of housing in general to provide affordable housing and to pay for all new school construction,” Cogdill said. “No wonder an average home costs $440,000 in California and we have the worst affordability in the nation.”

Political Contributions

Several PACs operated by the association in the past have donated to efforts to increase voter turnout in Los Angeles County, the campaign of Secretary of State Alex Padilla and several other candidates from both parties.

Contributors to the PAC include numerous construction firms, engineering companies and home developers.

“Yes, the building lobby benefits greatly in this,” said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which advocates for limited public taxation. “It spends a considerable amount to support these school bond measures and the people opposed have no money.”

The unspoken message that underlies any school bond pitch is that it’s for the kids, he said.

“But a lot of people want good schools and that’s a good thing,” Vosburgh said. “But they don’t see that in the end, these people are expecting a boost to their wallets.”