SB 0705 - Fiscal Note

Fiscal Note - SB 0705 - Driver's licenses may be suspended for failure to pay three or more local traffic or parking violations

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. NO. 3168-01

BILL NO. SB 705

SUBJECT: Suspensions: Traffic or Parking Violations

TYPE: Original

DATE: January 26, 1998

---

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Highway Fund	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
Total Estimated Net Effect on All State Funds	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Total Estimated Net Effect on Local Funds	Unknown to (Unknown)	Unknown to (Unknown)	Unknown to (Unknown)

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses

This fiscal note contains 5 pages.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

The Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assumes that there could be one or more cases to test the parameters of the law, but there would be no significant impact on the courts.

The Department of Revenue (DOR) assumes that the fiscal impact resulting from this proposal would be unknown. The proposal would require the DOR to suspend driving privileges for any person who has failed to pay three or more municipal traffic or parking violations. According to the Court Clerk of the Jefferson City Municipal Court, parking violations are unique to each county and municipal jurisdiction in the State of Missouri. The tickets are processed locally and are not forwarded to any type of statewide database for record retention. In Jefferson City the tickets are issued to the vehicle and notice of the failure are issued to the owner(s). If the ticket remains unpaid, a summons is issued to the owner(s). Jefferson City does not issue warrants as the court is unable to determine if the person owning the vehicle is actually the violator. For purposes of this fiscal note, DOR assumes that all courts have the same or similar procedures. It is assumed that this proposal would have a significant administrative impact, but since the number of unpaid tickets cannot be predicted, the number of FTE and associated expense and equipment cannot be estimated.

The revenue generated as a result of this proposal would also be unknown. The number of suspensions which would occur would be unknown; therefore, the increase in revenue to the Highway Fund, Cities and County Aid Road Trust Fund cannot be determined. The DOR has discovered that the majority of the time when the reinstatement fee is only $20, the administrative costs would exceed the revenue generated. Oversight assumes that there could also be another source of revenue from the municipalities since the proposal provides that the state would be reimbursed for all reasonable costs incurred by the director of the DOR for filing the report and other potential associated costs. However, the amount would be unknown. Oversight has shown a negative net impact to the Highway Fund assuming administrative costs would exceed the revenue generated.

According to the Kansas City Municipal Courts, the proposal appears to be similar to the current procedure for non-compliance with speeding tickets in which individuals have 45 days in which to pay the fines. There would be programming modifications required since traffic and parking violations are not currently tracked in the manner necessary to implement this proposal. The Kansas City Municipal Courts do not expect the modifications to be expensive; however, reimbursing the DOR for certain costs could be costly. According to the CTS, this proposal would provide an enforcement mechanism for the municipal courts, resulting in an increase in collections from fines. The net impact would be dependent on how much the DOR would require to be reimbursed for its portion of this proposal. Oversight assumes that since the ASSUMPTION (continued)

majority of courts handle tickets in a similar fashion that similar costs and income would be experienced by other municipal courts. For purposes of this fiscal note, Oversight has ranged costs from a positive unknown to a negative unknown.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
HIGHWAY FUND
Income
Reinstatement Fees/Reimbursement	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
from Municipal Courts/Filing Fee for
Administrative Hearing
Costs-Department of Revenue (DOR)
FTE & Expense & Equipment	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
HIGHWAY FUND	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
LOCAL
Income-Cities
Reinstatement Fees	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Income-County Aid Road Trust Fund
Reinstatement Fees	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Income
Increased Collections
from Violations	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Costs
Reimbursement to the DOR
for Handling Violations &
Programming Modifications	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
(continued)	(10 Mo.)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
LOCAL FUNDS	to	to	to
	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business

This proposal would not have a direct fiscal impact on small businesses.

DESCRIPTION

The proposal would allow the director of the Department of Revenue (DOR) to suspend an operator's license for failure to pay any municipal traffic or parking violations. Any municipality, by ordinance, could provide procedures for sending a notice of impending suspension to an operator who has failed to pay any fine or penalty imposed for three violations after exhaustion of judicial review procedures. Failure to respond to the notice within 45 days would result in the municipality notifying the DOR that the operator's license if eligible for suspension. A $20 reinstatement fee would be required. The municipality could notify the DOR by sending a certified report of the non-payment. The municipality would be required to reimburse the DOR when it files a certified report plus other potential costs.

The DOR would be required to notify the person when such a report is received and that the operator's license would be suspended unless notification is received from the municipality verifying payment within 30 days. If notification is not received after 35 days, the operator's license would be suspended indefinitely. An administrative hearing could be requested if the request is made in writing and a $20 filing fee is paid.

The municipality would be required to immediately notify the DOR when any fine or penalty has been paid or the original report was in error. No final payment would be accepted by the municipality without the reinstatement fee being paid. A copy would also be provided to the person, at no additional charge, upon request.

The suspension would be terminated upon receipt of notification or presentation of a certified copy along with the reinstatement fee. No reinstatement fee would be required in case of an error by the municipality.

The provisions of this act would become effective on January 1, 1999.

DESCRIPTION (continued)

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program, would not require additional capital improvements or rental space, but would impact total state revenue.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Department of Revenue

Office of State Courts Administrator

Kansas City Municipal Courts

NOT RESPONDING: Springfield Municipal Courts and St. Louis Municipal Courts

Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

January 26, 1998