Legislative scrutiny increases on traffic-fine revenue
By:
|
Richmond Times Dispatch
Published: February 05, 2012
Published: February 05, 2012
HOPEWELL --
Hopewell's so-called million-dollar mile is now pushing the $2
million mark in annual revenue for the cash-strapped city of
smokestacks.
A traffic-enforcement program that runs 14 hours a day, seven days a week along a 1- to 2-mile section of Interstate 295 through the city has drawn the attention — and in some cases, ire — of some Virginia legislators and officials within the Virginia State Police.
The Hopewell Sheriff's Office, whose primary function is to provide courtroom security and serve civil-process papers, has carved out a special unit — complete with its own dispatching system — to focus solely on catching motorists who exceed the 70 mph speed limit as they pass briefly through Hopewell.
Eleven sheriff's deputies, all but one of whom are part time, wrote 14,778 tickets in 2011 with $2,056,387 in assessed fines, with more than $1.6 million of that being collected, the Sheriff's Office said. Seventy-five percent of those cited were from out of state.
The program, which Sheriff Greg Anderson started as a one-officer operation a year after he took office in 2006, has expanded over the past five years in personnel and revenue generated for the city.
The $26,665 in fines assessed in 2007 grew fivefold to $160,646 in 2008, tripled to $634,655 in 2009, nearly doubled to $1.1 million in 2010 and passed the $2 million mark last year.
"It's not about the money to me," Anderson said forcefully and repeatedly during a recent interview. The purpose, the sheriff said, is to slow people down and save lives.
"I'm actually corny enough to think that I can send a message in that (section of I-295) that might resonate and have an impact on people for a long stretch of that highway," he said.
The cash pouring into city coffers as a result of the fines, Anderson explained, "is the punishment piece" for breaking the law, and nothing more.
"It's astonishing to me that these people still come blowing through there at these high rates of speed," added Anderson, who takes umbrage at the suggestion that the sums being collected appear excessive.
"Is there a cutoff?" he said pointedly.
Anderson's program, and a few others like it across the state that have generated millions of dollars in revenue, has come under increasing scrutiny from the Virginia General Assembly. Several legislators say the programs are little more than speed traps that have developed into tidy revenue streams for localities.
"I don't dispute the fact that they are enforcing the law," said state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, who introduced legislation that would strip the ability of localities to collect traffic-fine revenue on interstates.
"But I have to question the pure intensity of the way they go about it."
Watkins added: "When you got somebody out there developing a revenue stream out of a process of law enforcement, you have to question whether it's all being appropriately applied" and whether justice is being served.
Watkins' bill died Jan. 18 on a 11-4 vote in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, as did a companion bill introduced by Del. Betsy Carr, D-Richmond, in the House of Delegates. The latter was passed by indefinitely on Jan. 25.
Although those measures failed, legislators also were unwilling to enhance the ability of localities to collect traffic fines for local purposes, as provided in a bill introduced by Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr., R-Louisa.
That bill, which died in committee on a 12-3 vote, would have strengthened current law and mandated that traffic-fine revenue be distributed to localities when citations are written on local ordinances, Garrett said.
"It would enshrine that concept into the Code of Virginia so that something like Senator Watkins' bill or Delegate Carr's bill wouldn't deny localities the revenue that are currently generated by these things," Garrett said.
Some legislators voting against Watkins' bill said they were opposed only because they believed it went too far. "To put a 100 percent prohibition" on localities is too much, said Sen. Ryan T. McDougle, R-Hanover.
"We need to make sure that we have a system in place that allows some flexibility, but doesn't make funding the motivation for enforcing the laws," McDougle said.
Watkins' bill would have mandated that a state statute, rather that a local ordinance, be used in issuing citations for traffic violations on an interstate highway or other roads receiving federal aid. That would result in fines assessed for those offenses going to the state treasury, rather than the localities.
Much of the money from fines and court costs assessed under state statutes goes to the state Literary Fund, which helps finance such things as teacher retirement costs and school construction. Watkins said the available pool of money for those purposes has dwindled as a result of some localities diverting traffic-fine money for their own purposes.
Watkins said during the severe economic downturn two years ago, he was looking for alternative funding resources and checked out the state Literary Fund. He was dismayed to find that it had dwindled to about a third of "what it had typically had been."
"I came to find out that … legislation had gone through that allowed these local governments to (supersede state statutes) with their local ordinances, and they were diverting all of the money," he said.
A September 2011 report from state Auditor of Public Accounts Walter Kucharski — requested by Watkins — showed how much money is at stake.
In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, Virginia's courts collected $95 million in fines and court costs from the enforcement of local ordinances — most involving traffic laws — that parallel state statutes, the audit shows. Localities can use that money as they see fit.
"When localities adopt ordinances that parallel state statutes and citizens pay fines and costs, localities deposit these collections in their general funds without any commitment to fund education, as with the Commonwealth's Literary Fund, or their share of court operations," the audit states.
In addition to Hopewell and other localities, the audit shows Emporia and neighboring Greensville County collectively assessed $5.4 million fines and costs and collected more than $2.9 million of that amount in fiscal 2010.
Hopewell's sheriff largely dismisses the audit, saying his critics "got the state auditor to dress up a nice study for them that is slanted in the state's favor."
As far as draining money away from the state literary fund, Anderson said the state was getting virtually no revenue from traffic fines from Hopewell's I-295 strip because few tickets were being written there before his enforcement program.
Anderson said now-retired Hopewell General District Court Judge Kenneth Nye advised him early in his administration that state troopers brought him no more than 100 traffic-related cases in his 16 years on the bench. It was Nye, the sheriff said, who approached him about enforcing the speed limit on I-295.
"I thought it was a great idea and ran with it," Anderson said.
The operation has, at times, been source of contention between Anderson and state police. The sheriff said he was threatened in 2009 by a state police first sergeant, who demanded that he abandon the operation "if I know what's good for me."
Before and after that encounter, Anderson said, state police have sent multiple units to the Hopewell I-295 strip to interfere with his operation and block deputies from writing tickets. That led to a meeting brokered by Del. Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico, between Anderson and state police Superintendent Steven Flaherty. No issues have arisen since then, Anderson said, and his office remains on good terms with state troopers.
Flaherty, through a spokeswoman, declined to discuss his department's interactions with the Hopewell Sheriff's Office or comment on operations such as Anderson's.
Anderson makes no secret of the program's financial rewards for Hopewell or how his operation has grown. The department has doubled its staff since the program began, adding one full-time and 10 part-time officers who exclusively work I-295 on a rotating basis.
The officers, fully certified by the state, work 36 to 38 hours a week and are paid by the city from a portion of the traffic-fine revenue. The sheriff said he hasn't benefited personally, noting he hasn't received a raise in five years.
Anderson said about 99 percent of the speeding citations issued are for driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit. More than 500 motorists were cited for driving 90 to 99 mph, and 19 for driving 100 mph or more.
Deputies working the strip also have arrested drug offenders, fugitives, drunken drivers and others, but they leave traffic crashes on the interstate to state police.
The sheriff takes great satisfaction in the defeat of the bills that would have ended his operation, noting the heavy opposition they received from the Virginia Sheriff's Association, the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties.
But one of Anderson's allies, the Virginia Municipal League, described the issue in less absolute terms. R. Michael Amyx, VML's executive director, said his group's opposition stemmed from a concern that localities would be stripped of the revenue generated from local traffic enforcement efforts.
However, Amyx said, a "distinct minority" of jurisdictions are taking their enforcement efforts too far and "all of us across the state will pay the price" if they aren't reined in. Without mentioning Hopewell, Amyx said localities that are "out of step" need to comply with "what the vast majority of jurisdictions do in the state."
"Bills are often produced when we got folks that are not following normal practice," said Amyx, who added that the VML intends to contact those localities during the off session. "And our sense is, unless those jurisdictions make those adjustments, we'll be facing the bills again next year."
mbowes@timesdispatch.com (804) 649-6450A traffic-enforcement program that runs 14 hours a day, seven days a week along a 1- to 2-mile section of Interstate 295 through the city has drawn the attention — and in some cases, ire — of some Virginia legislators and officials within the Virginia State Police.
The Hopewell Sheriff's Office, whose primary function is to provide courtroom security and serve civil-process papers, has carved out a special unit — complete with its own dispatching system — to focus solely on catching motorists who exceed the 70 mph speed limit as they pass briefly through Hopewell.
Eleven sheriff's deputies, all but one of whom are part time, wrote 14,778 tickets in 2011 with $2,056,387 in assessed fines, with more than $1.6 million of that being collected, the Sheriff's Office said. Seventy-five percent of those cited were from out of state.
The program, which Sheriff Greg Anderson started as a one-officer operation a year after he took office in 2006, has expanded over the past five years in personnel and revenue generated for the city.
The $26,665 in fines assessed in 2007 grew fivefold to $160,646 in 2008, tripled to $634,655 in 2009, nearly doubled to $1.1 million in 2010 and passed the $2 million mark last year.
"It's not about the money to me," Anderson said forcefully and repeatedly during a recent interview. The purpose, the sheriff said, is to slow people down and save lives.
"I'm actually corny enough to think that I can send a message in that (section of I-295) that might resonate and have an impact on people for a long stretch of that highway," he said.
The cash pouring into city coffers as a result of the fines, Anderson explained, "is the punishment piece" for breaking the law, and nothing more.
"It's astonishing to me that these people still come blowing through there at these high rates of speed," added Anderson, who takes umbrage at the suggestion that the sums being collected appear excessive.
"Is there a cutoff?" he said pointedly.
Anderson's program, and a few others like it across the state that have generated millions of dollars in revenue, has come under increasing scrutiny from the Virginia General Assembly. Several legislators say the programs are little more than speed traps that have developed into tidy revenue streams for localities.
"I don't dispute the fact that they are enforcing the law," said state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, who introduced legislation that would strip the ability of localities to collect traffic-fine revenue on interstates.
"But I have to question the pure intensity of the way they go about it."
Watkins added: "When you got somebody out there developing a revenue stream out of a process of law enforcement, you have to question whether it's all being appropriately applied" and whether justice is being served.
Watkins' bill died Jan. 18 on a 11-4 vote in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, as did a companion bill introduced by Del. Betsy Carr, D-Richmond, in the House of Delegates. The latter was passed by indefinitely on Jan. 25.
Although those measures failed, legislators also were unwilling to enhance the ability of localities to collect traffic fines for local purposes, as provided in a bill introduced by Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr., R-Louisa.
That bill, which died in committee on a 12-3 vote, would have strengthened current law and mandated that traffic-fine revenue be distributed to localities when citations are written on local ordinances, Garrett said.
"It would enshrine that concept into the Code of Virginia so that something like Senator Watkins' bill or Delegate Carr's bill wouldn't deny localities the revenue that are currently generated by these things," Garrett said.
Some legislators voting against Watkins' bill said they were opposed only because they believed it went too far. "To put a 100 percent prohibition" on localities is too much, said Sen. Ryan T. McDougle, R-Hanover.
"We need to make sure that we have a system in place that allows some flexibility, but doesn't make funding the motivation for enforcing the laws," McDougle said.
Watkins' bill would have mandated that a state statute, rather that a local ordinance, be used in issuing citations for traffic violations on an interstate highway or other roads receiving federal aid. That would result in fines assessed for those offenses going to the state treasury, rather than the localities.
Much of the money from fines and court costs assessed under state statutes goes to the state Literary Fund, which helps finance such things as teacher retirement costs and school construction. Watkins said the available pool of money for those purposes has dwindled as a result of some localities diverting traffic-fine money for their own purposes.
Watkins said during the severe economic downturn two years ago, he was looking for alternative funding resources and checked out the state Literary Fund. He was dismayed to find that it had dwindled to about a third of "what it had typically had been."
"I came to find out that … legislation had gone through that allowed these local governments to (supersede state statutes) with their local ordinances, and they were diverting all of the money," he said.
A September 2011 report from state Auditor of Public Accounts Walter Kucharski — requested by Watkins — showed how much money is at stake.
In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, Virginia's courts collected $95 million in fines and court costs from the enforcement of local ordinances — most involving traffic laws — that parallel state statutes, the audit shows. Localities can use that money as they see fit.
"When localities adopt ordinances that parallel state statutes and citizens pay fines and costs, localities deposit these collections in their general funds without any commitment to fund education, as with the Commonwealth's Literary Fund, or their share of court operations," the audit states.
In addition to Hopewell and other localities, the audit shows Emporia and neighboring Greensville County collectively assessed $5.4 million fines and costs and collected more than $2.9 million of that amount in fiscal 2010.
Hopewell's sheriff largely dismisses the audit, saying his critics "got the state auditor to dress up a nice study for them that is slanted in the state's favor."
As far as draining money away from the state literary fund, Anderson said the state was getting virtually no revenue from traffic fines from Hopewell's I-295 strip because few tickets were being written there before his enforcement program.
Anderson said now-retired Hopewell General District Court Judge Kenneth Nye advised him early in his administration that state troopers brought him no more than 100 traffic-related cases in his 16 years on the bench. It was Nye, the sheriff said, who approached him about enforcing the speed limit on I-295.
"I thought it was a great idea and ran with it," Anderson said.
The operation has, at times, been source of contention between Anderson and state police. The sheriff said he was threatened in 2009 by a state police first sergeant, who demanded that he abandon the operation "if I know what's good for me."
Before and after that encounter, Anderson said, state police have sent multiple units to the Hopewell I-295 strip to interfere with his operation and block deputies from writing tickets. That led to a meeting brokered by Del. Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico, between Anderson and state police Superintendent Steven Flaherty. No issues have arisen since then, Anderson said, and his office remains on good terms with state troopers.
Flaherty, through a spokeswoman, declined to discuss his department's interactions with the Hopewell Sheriff's Office or comment on operations such as Anderson's.
Anderson makes no secret of the program's financial rewards for Hopewell or how his operation has grown. The department has doubled its staff since the program began, adding one full-time and 10 part-time officers who exclusively work I-295 on a rotating basis.
The officers, fully certified by the state, work 36 to 38 hours a week and are paid by the city from a portion of the traffic-fine revenue. The sheriff said he hasn't benefited personally, noting he hasn't received a raise in five years.
Anderson said about 99 percent of the speeding citations issued are for driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit. More than 500 motorists were cited for driving 90 to 99 mph, and 19 for driving 100 mph or more.
Deputies working the strip also have arrested drug offenders, fugitives, drunken drivers and others, but they leave traffic crashes on the interstate to state police.
The sheriff takes great satisfaction in the defeat of the bills that would have ended his operation, noting the heavy opposition they received from the Virginia Sheriff's Association, the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties.
But one of Anderson's allies, the Virginia Municipal League, described the issue in less absolute terms. R. Michael Amyx, VML's executive director, said his group's opposition stemmed from a concern that localities would be stripped of the revenue generated from local traffic enforcement efforts.
However, Amyx said, a "distinct minority" of jurisdictions are taking their enforcement efforts too far and "all of us across the state will pay the price" if they aren't reined in. Without mentioning Hopewell, Amyx said localities that are "out of step" need to comply with "what the vast majority of jurisdictions do in the state."
"Bills are often produced when we got folks that are not following normal practice," said Amyx, who added that the VML intends to contact those localities during the off session. "And our sense is, unless those jurisdictions make those adjustments, we'll be facing the bills again next year."
Please contact us if you have legal questions.
Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C.
Charlottesville, VA
434-973-7474
TGBLaw.com
Inquire@TGBLaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment