Objections Stall Bill Hiking Fines to Build Courts

SACRAMENTO — Get a traffic ticket--build a jail.

So might read the slogan of one recent effort to finance state and local services by boosting fines charged to California’s errant motorists.

The sudden appearance here of several such proposals, in fact, threatens to undermine Orange County’s attempt to pay for new courtrooms that county officials say are badly needed.

A bill by state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) that would allow Orange and 15 other counties to double their current surcharges on fines for traffic and criminal violations is in trouble because legislators fear that such surcharges may soon total more than the fines themselves.

$5 Assessment Already Added

The state already adds a $5 assessment to every $10 in fines, using that money to train police officers, assist witnesses, repay victims for damages and even preserve endangered fish and game.

Several counties, including Orange, add another $2 to the state’s charges and split the money between special funds for building new courtrooms and jails.

Bergeson wants to allow counties to double their local surcharges for court and jail construction, which could bring the total assessment to $9 for every $10 in fines. But she’s not alone.

Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia) wants to add $2 to boost the state’s victim restitution fund. Sen. Ken Maddy (R-Fresno) would add $1 to repay hospitals and doctors that provide emergency care for the poor. Bergeson has another proposal to tack on 50 cents to pay for counties’ automated fingerprint identification systems.

Together, the proposals could lift the surcharges to $12.50 for every $10 in fines countywide. A $30 fine for speeding would cost the offender $67.50.

That prospect has generated opposition from several quarters, including the Automobile Club of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the state Judicial Council and several key Democrats who believe that the surcharges are a Republican-inspired substitute for tax hikes.

Bergeson’s bill would allow Orange County to raise an estimated $5 million for courthouse and jail construction. The money would go for a planned expansion of the courthouse complex in Santa Ana and the construction of a Juvenile Court building in Orange, which together would meet the county’s projected needs through the year 2010.

The 45-room criminal courts building is expected to cost $48.9 million. The Juvenile Court building, which would hold 10 courtrooms, would cost $16.82 million.

“That is our biggest need right now,” said Arlene Sontag, a legislative advocate for the county. “We have a bill in asking for 15 more Superior Court judges, and if that happens, they’re going to be sitting in the parking lot or on each other’s laps. There’s just no more room.”

Bill Stalled in Committee

But Bergeson’s bill, after being approved by the Senate, was defeated in the Assembly Public Safety Committee July 13, falling one vote short of passage. Committee members, however, agreed to reconsider the issue when they return from a four-week summer recess in August. Bergeson will try to persuade at least one of the committee’s four Democrats to support her measure. She has said the swing vote might come from Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles), who has supported the concept in the past.

But Roos said in an interview that he is unlikely to reverse his opposition to Bergeson’s measure, which he described as an attempt to “squeeze blood out of a turnip.”

“I’ve told Marian that I am sympathetic, that I know we need to build more courthouses in Orange County,” Roos said. “I’m not trying to block that at all. But penalty assessments just seem to me to be the wrong way to go.”

Roos said he views the assessments as part of a greater scheme to increase fees, an effort he characterized as the “Republican avoidance of taxes.”

“Either the taxes should be raised or the projects are not important enough to spend general fund revenues for,” he said.

Drivers Likelier to Pay

While the assessments are levied on fines for nearly all crimes, the bulk of the money raised comes from fines on traffic violators, who are more numerous and more likely to pay, than people accused of other crimes, according to state analysts. For that reason, the Automobile Club also opposes any increases in the penalties.

“Courthouses and jails benefit the entire community,” said David Sharlach, a lobbyist for the auto club. “We think it’s unfair to tax the motorist for this particular benefit.”

The Judicial Council, an administrative agency under the state Supreme Court, has also opposed the penalty assessments, arguing instead for a dramatic overhaul of the court funding system that would place most of the burden on the state, rather than counties. But John Davies, the council’s lobbyist, said the group has agreed to remain neutral on Bergeson’s bill.

“Our fundamental notion is that the courts should not be cast in the role of tax collector,” Davies said. “State courts are a state obligation and there should be some state funding for those trial courts. But given the fact that we don’t have state funding, we are looking at some of the realistic problems the courts face, and courtroom construction is one of those.”

No Alternatives Seen

Bergeson concedes that her approach is not ideal and agrees that the proposed surcharges are too high. But she sees no other option.

“There is no question that there are some who are holding out and saying this should be done by raising taxes,” Bergeson said. “That’s not going to happen. To be realistic, to reach a pragmatic resolution to these problems, we do have to look for a source of fee revenue.

“It has gotten out of proportion to what it should be,” she added.