Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement

125 th General Assembly of Ohio

Ohio Legislative Service Commission

77 South High Street, 9th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215-6136 ² Phone: (614) 466-3615

² Internet Web Site: http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/

BILL:

Sub. H.B. 30

DATE:

November 17, 2004

STATUS:

As Reported by Senate Highways & Transportation

SPONSOR:

Rep. Williams

LOCAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED:

No —

Permissive

 


CONTENTS:

Permits a fine of between $250 and $500 for standing or parking a vehicle in a disability parking spot, and denial of registration if fines are not paid

 

State Fiscal Highlights

 

STATE FUND

FY 2005

FY 2006

FUTURE YEARS

Fund 4W4 – Bureau of Motor Vehicles

     Revenues

Potential negligible loss

Potential negligible loss

Potential negligible loss

     Expenditures

Potential minimal increase

Potential minimal increase

Potential minimal increase

Note:  The state fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.  For example, FY 2004 is July 1, 2003 – June 30, 2004.

 

·        The Registrar of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles may experience a minimal increase in expenditures to review notices for failure to pay judgments or default judgments, and for denial of application for registration or transfer of registration.

·        There could be a potential negligible loss in revenues for the foregone registration fees.

Local Fiscal Highlights

 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

FY 2004

FY 2005

FUTURE YEARS

Counties, Municipalities, and Townships

     Revenues

Potential gain

Potential gain

Potential gain

     Expenditures

Potential increase

Potential increase

Potential increase

Counties, Municipalities, and Townships

     Revenues

- 0 -

- 0 -

- 0 -

     Expenditures

Minimal savings for document retention

Minimal savings for document retention

Minimal savings for document retention

Note:  For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year.  The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.

 

·        Local governments may experience an increase in parking infraction fine revenue and from owners of the vehicle posting bond or cash for release of their vehicle.

·        The potential gain of fine revenue is dependent upon behavioral choices made by motorists.  Increasing the fine for illegally parking in handicapped parking spaces may cause less revenue by:  1) deterring illegal parking; 2) violators who choose to park illegally but not pay the higher fine; or 3) violators who are indigent and cannot pay the higher fine.

·        Courts of common pleas, municipal courts, and county courts may experience minimal savings for retaining documents for fewer years related to cases involving minor misdemeanor offenses, minor misdemeanor traffic offenses, or other misdemeanor traffic offenses.

·        Local traffic violations bureaus may experience potential minimal expenditure increases from sending written notices to the registrar and denying registrations to individuals; impounding, immobilizing, and releasing vehicles to their owners; and revising or purchasing new forms to accommodate the new parking infraction.


 

Detailed Fiscal Analysis

 

Parking Fines

 

Local governments may experience an increase in parking infraction fine revenue and a potential revenue gain from owners posting bond or cash for release of their vehicle.  If a local government enacts a parking infraction that regulates the standing or parking of a vehicle in a disability parking space, it is unclear how much revenue may be generated from the increased fine from $100 to a range of $250 to $500 due to the variability of violations per political subdivision.  Currently, some municipal corporations already enact violations for standing or parking a vehicle in a disability parking space under “home rule” authority that exceeds $100. 

 

The Legislative Service Commission does not have an estimate of the number of tickets written by each political subdivision for such a violation, or an estimate of the potential revenue gain or loss that may result from the increased fine.  Future revenue gains may be potentially less than expected due to behavioral changes in individuals whereby the fines act as a deterrent.  Furthermore, with increased fines, a larger number of violators may refuse to pay the fine resulting in revenue loss.  In turn, this could result in increased court costs to adjudicate the matter.  However, an examination of three political subdivisions below may aid in understanding the impact of the bill. 

 

Because “home rule” exists in many cities in Ohio, the major impact of this bill will mostly affect small cities, townships, and counties.  For example, the City of Westerville has set its first offense violation of this sort at $100.  Subsequent violations can bring a fine between $250 and $500.  In 2002, Westerville’s Violations Bureau and court processed 31 handicap violations of this type and collected $2,115 in revenue.  Thus, if Westerville were to increase its fine to between $250 and $500 and these statistics remained the same, there would be a revenue increase.  However, such a raise in fine amount might effectively deter people from violating the ordinance, and no revenue would be created.

 

Other villages and towns may not increase their fines pursuant to the bill.  Grove City and Dublin have set their current fines for violations at $20 and $85 respectively.  These limits are well below the $100 limit currently set by state law, thus, it is possible that the fines will not be raised to the $250 to $500 range set by this bill. 

 

Any costs to local governments are permissive.  The potential revenue increases from the bill may offset the following potential expenditure increases:  1) local traffic violation bureaus sending written notices to the registrar; 2) denying registration to individuals; impounding, immobilizing and releasing vehicles; and 3) revising or purchasing new forms to accommodate the new parking infraction. 

 

Courts

 

            Am. Sub. H.B. 163 of the 125th General Assembly (effective September 23, 2004) required that the clerks of the courts of common pleas, municipal courts, and county courts retain admissible evidence regarding each criminal conviction for a period of 50 years.  Sub. H.B. 30 maintains this provision, but states that documentation regarding cases concerned with minor misdemeanor offenses or minor misdemeanor traffic offenses be retained for five years instead of 50 years, and allows for all current files older than five years to be disposed of.  The bill also adds the requirement that documentation regarding other misdemeanor traffic offenses be disposed of after 25 years instead of 50 years.  These reductions in the required years for document retention may result in administrative savings for costs associated with long-term storage.  Actual costs may vary per court depending on the number of such cases.

 

LSC fiscal staff:  Edward Millane, Budget Analyst

                          Sara D. Anderson, Budget Analyst

                         Jonathan Lee, Budget Analyst

 

 

HB0030HR/arc