Traffic Ticket Enforcement Assistance Program (TTEAP) Vehicle Registration
Mike DiMarco, Fiscal Manager, AOC FARE Program
Amend A.R.S. 28-1631 and 28-1 632 to expand the Traffic Ticket Enforcement
Assistance Program by including fees, costs surcharges, restitution, assessments,
penalty adjustments and penalty enhancements; Include parking violations in the
program; Remove the requirement that the delinquency be at least $200.
INCLUDE NOT INCLUDE OTHER
S ARIZONA JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Legislative Request for Proposal
2006 Legislative Session
Short Title / Subject Matter of Proposal Date: 8/26/05
Traffic Ticker Enforcement Assistance Program (TTEAP) Vehicle
Reaistration Hold Expansion
Name Mike DiMarco_____________________
Title _FARE Fiscal Manager_____________________
Address 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007
Telephone _602-542-9328_______ Fax _602-307-1245_ E-mail _mdimarco~courts.az,gov
SECTION I: BACKGROUND
A. Describe the issue, problem, or need for the proposal. Please be detailed. The Fines/Fees
and Restitution Enforcement Program is a statewide initiative with one of its goals to
increase revenues through utilization of technology and court order enforcement
tools. One of those tools, the Traffic Ticket Enforcement Assistance Program
(TTEAP), was brought up in August, 2004, TTEAP allows the Motor Vehicle
Division, on instruction from the court, to place a hold on a vehicle registration
renewal when there is more than S200 in outstanding court obligations for civil or
criminal traffic violations or there is a failure to appear on a criminal traffic citation.
This proposal will strengthen the penalty enforcement program with MVD by
expanding it to cover additional types of cases and types of court imposed obligations
and eliminate the S200 minimum on obligations that qualify for the program. The
additional revenue that will be generated will benefit the state, counties, cities, victims
and the surcharge recipients created by state statute or county or city ordinance.
B. Specifically describe how the problem will be corrected or the need served by the proposal.
Provide supporting information, e.g., statistics on increased caseloads, reports. etc. During
the first 14 months of TTEAP operation there have been 135,131 vehicle registration
holds placed and 19,969 hold releases due to payment. There are currently 172,609
(S24,l 56,700) parking violations in the FARE data base that would be TTEAP eligible
with the proposed change. Additionally there are 65,000 (88,993,100) citations under
S200 that would be TTEAP eligible if the monetary limit were removed.
C. Please provide the contact information of any individuals with relevant/expert knowledge
on this subject. Mike DiMarco, 602-542-9328; Janet Scheiderer, 602-542-9334.
U. Please provide (on this form or as an attachment) the recommended language of the
legislation. (The Government Affairs group will assist in final drafling if the proposal
moves forward). See Attached.
E. Can the desired change be achieved by another method? No
Court Rule E Administrative Order ~ Interagency Agreement E
Please Explain. The program is statutory.
F. If adopted by the Arizona Legislature, would the regular effective date be acceptable (90
days after adjournment of the legislative session)? Are there any reasons why an
emergency effective date (effective immediately upon signature of the Governor) or a
delayed effective date should be sought? Please explain. Yes
SECTION II: IMPACTS +
A. Check ALL Courts that could be affected.
Supreme ~ Appellate E Superior ~ Justice • Municipal ~
B. Could the proposed legislation shift cases from one court level to another? Please explain.
C. List the Arizona Revised Statute(s), Court rules or Administrative Orders. etc that could be
affected by this proposed legislation. ARS 28-1631 and 28-1632 (Language Attached)
D. Describe anticipated impacts of proposed legislation on the administration of the courts.
For example, adoption or revision of court rules or procedures; added or revised reporting
requirements; collection of statistics; impact on workload level, automation requirements,
etc. No impact anticipated.
F. Describe the impact this legislation will have on current court revenues, expenditures and
funding. Are the funds involved appropriated or non-appropriated? Will additional
expenditures be necessary if this legislation passes, i.e., automation, personnel or materials?
The current TTEAP release rate from payments is 14.8%. If that same percentage is
maintained an additional S4.9 million could be expected. This revenue would flow to
the existing recipients as if the funds had been paid timely counties, cities and
F. Describe the consequences if the proposed legislation is not pursued or passed this year.
The current law significantly limits the types of eligible cases to traffic citations
(excluding parking) and the offender must owe at least 5200. If the restrictions are
not eliminated court order compliance efforts will continue to be limited causing a loss
G. Briefly, describe any impact this legislation will have on other governmental agencies or
budget units? TTEAP was implemented in August, 2004.
H. Will this legislation advance the goals of Chief Justice McGregor’s Strategic Agenda, Good
to Great? Yes. Goal 1: Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice FARE was designed
to enhance the operations of limited and general jurisdiction courts. Goal 4:
Improving Communication and Cooperation With the Community, Other Branches
of Government and Within the Judicial Branch — FARE is a public/private
partnership involving the judicial and executive branches and a private vendor,
SECTION III: SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION
A. Please identify any agencies, groups, or legislators, etc, who support, or may support, this
legislation and describe the reasons for their support. Courts will be supportive to
enhance their revenue collections.
B. Please identify any agencies, groups, legislators, etc. who oppose, or may oppose, the
proposed legislation and describe the reasons for their opposition. None known at this
C. Describe any possible risks of introducing this issue to the Legislature. For example, does
it have the potential of subjecting a programs non-appropriated funds to legislative review
and control, etc? FARE expenses are covered by fees assessed the defendants funds —
in excess of expenses are pledged to be redistributed back to the participating courts
to provide a partial offset to expenses they may incur by participating. The monies
are non-appropriated at the State level. All recovered fines, fees, restitution etc. flow
as they would today to the counties, cities, victims, surcharge recipients these where
applicable would be appropriated at the local level. +
PROPOSED CHANGES TO ARS 28~1631and 28-1632
28-1631 T ffio4i~ket ENALTY enforcement assistance program: establishment
(Strengthens the MVD penalty enforcement program by expanding it to cover additional types of cases and
types of court imposed obligations)
A. The department shall establish procedures to:
1. Assist the courts ~ of this state to collect delinquent fines and FEES, penalties,
COST, SURCHARGES, RESTITUTION, ASSESSMENTS, PENALTY ADJUSTMENTS, AND PENALTY
ENHANCEMENTS imposed for civil and criminal traffic violations including all surcharges.
2+ ASSIST THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE TO COLLECT DELINQUENT FiNES AND
PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRAFFIC VIOLAITONS AND PARKING VIOLATIONS,
INCLUDING ALL SURCHARGES.
3+ Assist in the enforcement of criminal traffic failure to appear offenses.
The-program established by this article ~h~IInot include collection of delinquent parking tickets
28-1632 Refusal tq,,,reflqw registration
(Eliminates the current $200 minimum on obligations that qualify for the MVD penalty enforcement program)
A. On proper notification by a court or political subdivision pursuant to 28-1633, the department shall refuse
to renew the registration of a vehicle if either:
1+ The registered owner of a vehicle is delinquent in paying a fine or penalty for a civil or criminal traffic
2 The registered owner fails to appear in a criminal traffic case.