Judges: Jim Smith Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/18/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Joann G. Slay County Attorney Gadsden County Post Office Drawer 391 16 East Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351
Dear Ms. Slay:
This is in response to your request, in your capacity as county attorney for Gadsden County, for an opinion on substantially the following questions:
(1) SHOULD THE ADDITIONAL $4.00 AUTHORIZED BY CH. 85-225, LAWS OF FLORIDA, WHICH AMENDED ss.
318.18 ,34.191 and316.660 , F.S., BE LEVIED ON ALL NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS, OR ONLY INFRACTIONS FROM A MUNICIPALITY WHICH PRESENTLY HAS A SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM?(2) IF THIS ADDITIONAL PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED ON ALL NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS OCCURRING IN GADSDEN COUNTY, SHOULD THOSE PENALTIES BE PRORATED AMONG THOSE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE COUNTY WHICH DO HAVE A SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF GUARDS EMPLOYED BY EACH MUNICIPALITY?
QUESTION ONE
For the following reasons, it is my opinion that the additional penalty of up to $4.00, once approved by the county commission, should be levied on all noncriminal traffic infractions. Section
In addition to any civil penalties imposed by this section, the clerk of the court is authorized, upon approval of the board of county commissioners of the county, to assess an additional penalty of up to $4 per violation for the purpose of funding a county or municipal school crossing guard program. (e.s.)
The plain language of s.
QUESTION TWO
For the following reasons, it is my opinion that the additional penalties assessed pursuant to s.
Section
[a]ll civil penalties and forfeitures received by a county court pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be distributed and paid monthly to the municipalities and counties, respectively, in the same manner, upon the same bases, and upon the same terms and conditions that fines and forfeitures are distributed and paid to municipalities and counties under the provisions of s.
316.660 .
Section
The additional penalties collected pursuant to s.
318.18 (8) shall be paid monthly, in accordance with s.318.21 , to the local governmental entity administering a school crossing guard program. (e.s.)
See also, s.
Thus, ss.
However, nothing in Ch. 85-255 addresses the additional problem of how to divide these penalty monies among the qualifying local governmental entities. In the absence of any legislative or judicial direction on this issue, I am unable to definitively state what the apportionment formula should be, or whether it should be based on factors such as school population rather than number of guards employed.
In summary, until legislatively or judicially determined otherwise, it is my opinion that:
(1) the additional penalty of up to four dollars authorized by s.
318.18 (8) for the purpose of funding a county or municipal school crossing guard program, should be levied on all noncriminal traffic infractions, and not just on infractions occurring within certain municipalities.(2) the monies derived from the additional penalties assessed pursuant to s.
318.18 (8) should be paid to those local governmental entities within a county [county and/or municipalities] which administer school crossing guard programs. However, this office cannot state what the formula for apportionment of such monies among the qualifying local governmental entities should be.
Sincerely,
Jim Smith Attorney General
Prepared by:
Anne Curtis Terry Assistant Attorney General